US Protectionism and Chinese Shipyards Keep Aging Ships Sailing

https://www.cato.org/blog/us-protectionism-chinese-shipyards-keep-ancient-ships-service

If i haven’t made my views clear 100 times before.

■■■■ THE JONES ACT!!!

The Jones Act ■■■■■ the United States, it ■■■■■ the national security of the United States over, it ■■■■ the American people over.

And yet we keep this insane madness on the books.

And both parties are beholding to this protectionist lunacy.

We have to service these ships in Chinese shipyards.

And, as the article points out, while the companies promote the Jones Act as a bulwark against China with one side of their mouth, they are making deals to service their ships in China with the other side of their mouth.

The Jones Act is a rent seeking atrocity on the American People.

■■■■ the Jones Act.

Simple as that.

1 Like

:roll_eyes:

You certainly have used a loaded term, “protectionism”, which people with a personal and suspicious agenda use.

I am not the one selling out our country to China.

Did it ever dawn on you the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act) may not be at fault, but rather, it is corporate leaders who have no allegiance to the United States, and are the ones selling out our Country who are at fault?

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 was adopted to promote and advance America’s best interests and is hated with a passion by globalists, and the Cato Institute is a champion of globalism, and to hell with the best interests of the United States.

2 Likes

Did you know he’s an executive in the industry? He’s probably forgotten more than you’ll ever know about it.

the terminology “keep aging ships sailing” was confusing…

I was expecting to see galleons or clippers, not shipping vessels that don’t have sails

As another poster said, I am involved in the industry.

I have done my research and I know far more about shipping than you could even comprehend.

Fat mouthing.

That is just ■■■■■■■ rich, coming from YOU of all posters.

Your the one constantly dropping walls of text here.

You are in ZERO position to accuse ANYBODY of fat mouthing.

4 Likes

But our ships DO have sails.

:smile:

aerodynamic grain silos look so billowy

And my brother-in-law was a merchant marine office for over twenty-five years.

Your attack on the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 confirms your uninformed knowledge on the subject.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is comparable to An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789 in that it was intentionally designed to promote an America First policy ___ an intention which you attack by your misguided and derogatory reference to “protectionism”. Part of the above linked Act reads as follows:

“…a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.”

This patriotic use of Congress’ power not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America’s ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels…an irrefutable sign of America’s decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and “globalists” ___ your cited source . . . “The Cato Institute”.

You can blow smoke all you want about “protectionism”,but in the end, the Cato Institute, your source, is a dangerous ring leader which advances globalism, and not an America First policy. See: Introducing Defending Globalization, a New Cato Institute Project

JWK

2 Likes

I am all for what little “protectionism” the USA has left.

2 Likes

Because that has worked wonders. I mean just as an example, we were complaining about China’s 8% tariffs on US imports in 2017. Because ours were only at 3.1% for their imports. Which is a complicated issue by itself. But now everything is good because we’re both at 21% tariffs rates on both sides. That’s exactly what we wanted to have happen. Because that’s what you want between the two largest economies on the planet. Because ■■■■ like that didn’t shut down international trade after WWI.

That is exactly what I am talking about and the analogy to WWI IS APPLES AND ORANGATANGES.

“As a result of [the relatively high cost of building vessels in the US], the vessels in Jones Act markets…are quite old.” Recently another Jones Act CEO stated that while tankers from the international fleet are typically used for 20–25 years, those in the Jones Act fleet typically have lifespans of 30–40 years."

Seems like the law is pretty broken. We’re stuck with clapped-out ships while everyone else gets nice new equipment. By the results alone, the Jones act needs to go in the trash.

It sounds like the “where the ship was built” portion has been overrun by reality. And apparently it failed to achieve the desired effect.

1 Like

Isn’t the Jones Act the reason we can’t buy ships from Japan or South Korea?

Depends what the ships are gonna be used for.

Jones Act says “Only US-built ships can ship goods from one US port to another US port.”

It’s a dinosaur.
How harmful is it? Is it a big thing or a little thing?

I dunno, but I have never heard anyone defend it.

So your goal is to return to what helped cause and enhance the Great Depression?

You have a case of the Brandons.

What Democrats are doing is bringing Weimar

Waging wars to fuel the economy. Exactly inverse of the Trump Doctrine.

The government believed that it would be able to pay off the debt by winning the war and imposing war reparations on the defeated Allies. This was to be done by annexing resource-rich industrial territory in the west and east and imposing cash payments to Germany,

1 Like

Updated to accommodate changing times while keeping an America First policy as its ultimate aim.