Instead of a 10 day repeal for one territory, how about a full repeal of the Jones Act?

[RB TexLa]

We are basically saying the utter inefficiency of protectionism is fine if there isn't a disaster. Oh, that's right we have a president who wants to bring that same inefficiency to the steel industry and others.

[Not Ruth]

1. Unions would go nuts

[Hortensis]

2. That'd be a real help. Too "real" for the shipping companies,

but I've been hoping that somehow this disaster makes it happen. The bankruptcy disaster didn't.

[mercuryblues]

3. Do you

know what the Jones act is and what it does?

[RB TexLa]

4. Yes

And it belongs where all protectionism belongs. In the garbage.

[mercuryblues]

5. please explain it then

[RB TexLa]

6. Oh Im sure you can google. Unless you are just trying to play a childlike game.

[mercuryblues]

7. you brought it up

So you must know what it is and what it does? I would like you to explain what you think it means and how repealing it would be a good thing.

[RB TexLa]

9. Or you can play your little game with someone else

[mercuryblues]

10. So you don't

know what it is and what it does.

[dsc]

11. He was a snot about it

but the Jones Act is a protectionist scheme whose costs are borne by Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in large measure. It requires goods shipped between US ports to be shipped on US ships staffed with US crew. That drives up the cost of all goods in those places.

[mercuryblues]

12. That is only part of it

It requires ships be built in the US, manned by US citizens or permanent residents and sail under the US flag.

This is important because during times of war, this act allows for US ships to bring supplies to our troops overseas. During the Gulf war over 70 ships supplied our troop. Over 90% of the cargo needed was brought by US ships. Without this law, we would not have any US ships in ready reserve to supply the US military. We would be forced to rely on other countries to supply our troops at premium shipping rates. How do you think that would work out?

Foreign flagged ships can drop off goods in PR. 66% of their goods are brought in by foreign ships. 99% of their fuel is brought in by foreign flagged ships. They can even send exports out on these ships. Those ships just can't pick up exports and bring them to Miami.

As for driving up the cost, that can not be calculated, according to the GAO. There are too many variables that are included in the end price.

But just for comparison on consumer costs

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Puerto+Rico&country2=United+States

Here is the comparison for consumer costs of PR vs USVI, which is not subject to the jones act.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Puerto+Rico&country2=Us+Virgin+Islands

[csziggy]

13. Why doesn't it apply to passenger ships also?

After ocean liners were used to transport troops for past wars. Currently most passenger ships are foreign built, foreign staffed, and foreign owned. Wouldn't it be in US interests to have passenger ships that sail mostly in & out of US ports to built in the USA, staffed by American crews, and owned by American companies?

For example, I'm thinking of the ships that sail out of Florida, around the Caribbean or to the Bahamas and return their passengers to Florida, not ones that travel from Florida to major foreign ports in Europe or Latin America.

[fescuerescue]

14. It does

And it's why the ship returns to the SAME US port.

You won't find foreign flagged cruise ships (which is basically all of them) leaving from one US port and returning to another one.

[tirebiter]

8. Shouldn't need repealing

If logistics are dealt with realistically beforehand.