So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect.
It's just a one sided argument that any form of trade protectionism is bad.
Would you argue the same way against a one-sided argument that slavery is bad?
Some things are one-sided for a reason: There isn't much to support the opposing side.
That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner. And what's worse is that it's not really money that we lose (we could always create more), but real-world value. We all collectively have far less as a result of protectionism, even though a select few might benefit from one piece of protection. Of course, they also lose to all the other forms of protectionism that apply to others. In the protectionism game, it's a dog-fight all the way down to zero.
Edit: And by the way, while the Jones Act was originally protectionism for the domestic shipping industry, which it immediately killed, now it is actually protection for the domestic TRUCKING industry. It would be much cheaper, with a much lower carbon footprint to ship things by boat up and down the coasts, or even from coast to coast sometimes, than trucking.
> That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
For the record, I support the Jones Act, and I'm just part of "society at large" and have nothing to do with shipping or logistics. Personally, I think it should be strengthened and made more strict to block some of the workarounds this article cites as reasons for its repeal.
I think that idea that the only people who support protectionism are those who personally gain from it is lazy and stupid. I'm really tired of that sort of thing in support of libertarianism.
> In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner.
Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
The only way libertarians can go on and on about many of these "inefficiencies" is because they're willfully blind to a lot of significant considerations, which they utterly ignore in their propaganda.
> So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect.
Where is the domestic industry that was intended to be encouraged? Where are the US shipbuilders capable of building viable ships? Where are the US registered ships?
This 2019 press release from the department of transportation kind of says it all [1]:
> U.S. commercial shipbuilding of large merchant-type ships has been locked into a downward spiral of decreasing demand and an increased divergence between domestic and foreign shipbuilding productivity and pricing.
> In the case of large self-propelled oceangoing vessels, U.S. shipyards still lack the scale, technology, and the large volume “series building” order books needed to compete effectively with shipyards in other countries.
I'm not against the intent of the the Jones Act, but it hasn't resulted in a viable domestic industry of shipbuilding or water transport. Instead, water transport within the US is very limited and there's a lot of unnecessary import/export of fungible products. There's probably some amount of unnecessary import/export that's useful for other purposes --- economic relations between countries does have value, and maybe there's some additional flexibility this way.
Fundamentally, I think the question is: Is it better to have a barely viable shipyard industry and very limited domestic water shipping capacity or a military only shipyard industry and greater domestic water shipping capacity? And/or --- is there a better way to encourage the US shipyard industry than this?
100%. The Jones Act is more than a regulatory hurdle for offshore wind projects; it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength. By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms. It's about investing in our infrastructure, creating jobs, and keeping the U.S. competitive in the global maritime industry. It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
>By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
It certainly doesn't - there are enough "cowboy" US operators who are working far below the quality and safety standards which are practiced by European contractors. It's really a struggle sometimes to ensure that things are done properly and safely in the US. It's a practically new industry in the US and there is a lot of catching up to do.
> By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
As the article says, there are currently no WTIV ships that meet the requirements of the Jones Act. So you can't really say the law guarantees something that doesn't exist.
We suck at building ships. We can't build them quickly or resource-efficiently. They frequently break down (remember Windows NT problems on Destroyers?). Washington State can't even figure out how to buy new ones.
> ...it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength...It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
B...b...but I want to monomaniacally focus on short-term market prices, like they're the only thing that matters in the world! Quit cramping my ideological fixation with complicating factors!
> law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect
Is it though? It sounds like the one company that got a contract in this situation is so far unable to come through on it and is well over budget already. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement for protectionism.
Nifty3929|2 years ago
Some things are one-sided for a reason: There isn't much to support the opposing side.
That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner. And what's worse is that it's not really money that we lose (we could always create more), but real-world value. We all collectively have far less as a result of protectionism, even though a select few might benefit from one piece of protection. Of course, they also lose to all the other forms of protectionism that apply to others. In the protectionism game, it's a dog-fight all the way down to zero.
Edit: And by the way, while the Jones Act was originally protectionism for the domestic shipping industry, which it immediately killed, now it is actually protection for the domestic TRUCKING industry. It would be much cheaper, with a much lower carbon footprint to ship things by boat up and down the coasts, or even from coast to coast sometimes, than trucking.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
tivert|2 years ago
For the record, I support the Jones Act, and I'm just part of "society at large" and have nothing to do with shipping or logistics. Personally, I think it should be strengthened and made more strict to block some of the workarounds this article cites as reasons for its repeal.
I think that idea that the only people who support protectionism are those who personally gain from it is lazy and stupid. I'm really tired of that sort of thing in support of libertarianism.
> In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner.
Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
The only way libertarians can go on and on about many of these "inefficiencies" is because they're willfully blind to a lot of significant considerations, which they utterly ignore in their propaganda.
bluGill|2 years ago
toast0|2 years ago
Where is the domestic industry that was intended to be encouraged? Where are the US shipbuilders capable of building viable ships? Where are the US registered ships?
This 2019 press release from the department of transportation kind of says it all [1]:
> U.S. commercial shipbuilding of large merchant-type ships has been locked into a downward spiral of decreasing demand and an increased divergence between domestic and foreign shipbuilding productivity and pricing.
> In the case of large self-propelled oceangoing vessels, U.S. shipyards still lack the scale, technology, and the large volume “series building” order books needed to compete effectively with shipyards in other countries.
I'm not against the intent of the the Jones Act, but it hasn't resulted in a viable domestic industry of shipbuilding or water transport. Instead, water transport within the US is very limited and there's a lot of unnecessary import/export of fungible products. There's probably some amount of unnecessary import/export that's useful for other purposes --- economic relations between countries does have value, and maybe there's some additional flexibility this way.
Fundamentally, I think the question is: Is it better to have a barely viable shipyard industry and very limited domestic water shipping capacity or a military only shipyard industry and greater domestic water shipping capacity? And/or --- is there a better way to encourage the US shipyard industry than this?
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/testimony/us-maritime-and-shi...
crftr|2 years ago
cr1895|2 years ago
It certainly doesn't - there are enough "cowboy" US operators who are working far below the quality and safety standards which are practiced by European contractors. It's really a struggle sometimes to ensure that things are done properly and safely in the US. It's a practically new industry in the US and there is a lot of catching up to do.
legitster|2 years ago
As the article says, there are currently no WTIV ships that meet the requirements of the Jones Act. So you can't really say the law guarantees something that doesn't exist.
coryrc|2 years ago
The Jones Act has failed in every way.
tivert|2 years ago
B...b...but I want to monomaniacally focus on short-term market prices, like they're the only thing that matters in the world! Quit cramping my ideological fixation with complicating factors!
toomuchtodo|2 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/cato-institute/
legitster|2 years ago
Is it though? It sounds like the one company that got a contract in this situation is so far unable to come through on it and is well over budget already. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement for protectionism.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]