Balsa Policy Institute chose as its first mission to lay groundwork for the potential repeal, or partial repeal, of section 27 of the Jones Act of 1920.
"As in, the price of gasoline on the east coast would be $0.63 lower without the Jones Act. That’s insane. Can you imagine what voters would do if they realized they were paying that much extra for gas?"
That's $0.63 lower *per barrel*, right? Not *per gallon*? I don't think anything you said is literally wrong, but it appears to suggest the price would be $0.63 lower per gallon. Might want to reword that.
There are 42 gallons to a barrel, so this would be cost savings of $0.015. That's not a huge amount, but many voters would care about it, at least in principle.
Yeah, not a driver and neither was the editor I was working with and we didn't realize I was transposing the units. That's why I always try to watch the comments shortly after posting.
(And if that's the biggest mistake I made here, given how many claims there are, I'll consider that pretty good.)
I think that’s a very fair summary. Excellent resource you’ve put together, by the way; I’ve been wanting to read a comprehensive primer on the Jones Act for a while and this was very helpful.
Your point 10 argument for opposing repeal is valid. There would be no shipbuilding. We would make as many ships as we do cell phones and TVs. I'm all for reforming or repealing, but not before dealing with the implicit security subsidy provided to all foreign ships by the US Navy. Place a discharge fee on all of the Liberian and other foreign flagged ships to pay for the US Navy. Then we'll see if the US shipbuilding and maintenance industry is truly that uncompetitive.
"As in, the price of gasoline on the east coast would be $0.63 lower without the Jones Act. That’s insane. Can you imagine what voters would do if they realized they were paying that much extra for gas?"
Your statement implies the cost to consumers at the pump would be $0.63 lower, but the supporting quote is talking about the price per barrel. There are 42 gallons to the barrel so a $0.63 price reduction per barrel would only result in a 1.5 cent per gallon reduction at the pump.
In your discussion of compensating those harmed by the repeal, you focus on how small the currently-protected shippers and shipyards really are. But surely the bulk of the opposition will come from the very powerful trucking and railroad industries, who would have to face actual competition from domestic shipping. Those are the unions everyone is tiptoeing around, not the handful of domestic shipyards or whatever. Any plan to get the Jones Act repealed will have to have a plan to deal with truck and railroad unions.
So what's the real objection to the Jones Act? It can't be efficiency. The article proposed starting a dozen new federal subsidy programs to make up for the cutting of this one - anyone can tell, that's not gonna increase economic efficiency. And the article ignores the most stunningly obvious reason intra-national coastal trade is scarce: Our entire industrial base was sold off to our rivals & enemies, and our cities make very little goods that can be traded.
Is the sentiment in this article just another battle in the ongoing war against the few remaining high paying blue-collar jobs in America? (See the recent longshoremen strike.) Of course everyone knows Progressives hate the working class - and they hate it even more when the working man is financially comfortable.
Btw, this doesn't mean I am a big supporter of the Jones Act. I have no strong opinion. But I can see the arguments presented here against the Act are most unpersuasive.
"To qualify, all passengers must also take a full round trip. I am curious what happens if someone decides not to return to the ship and the government finds out."
There was a report on Reddit 7 years ago of somebody missing a boat and receiving a $1,400 fine for exactly this:
#first
You are doing god's work here, sir, and I will file an amicus brief (I Am Not A Lawyer) at your treason trial.
"As in, the price of gasoline on the east coast would be $0.63 lower without the Jones Act. That’s insane. Can you imagine what voters would do if they realized they were paying that much extra for gas?"
That's $0.63 lower *per barrel*, right? Not *per gallon*? I don't think anything you said is literally wrong, but it appears to suggest the price would be $0.63 lower per gallon. Might want to reword that.
$0.63 per barrel would be absolutely irrelevant, whereas $0.63 per gallon would seem to match Zvi’s description of the hypothetical voters’ reaction.
There are 42 gallons to a barrel, so this would be cost savings of $0.015. That's not a huge amount, but many voters would care about it, at least in principle.
Yes, I assumed that Zvi had misquoted in that section but it seems clear he merely miscalculated. $0.63 per barrel is not especially significant.
Yeah, not a driver and neither was the editor I was working with and we didn't realize I was transposing the units. That's why I always try to watch the comments shortly after posting.
(And if that's the biggest mistake I made here, given how many claims there are, I'll consider that pretty good.)
I think that’s a very fair summary. Excellent resource you’ve put together, by the way; I’ve been wanting to read a comprehensive primer on the Jones Act for a while and this was very helpful.
Yep, I deleted that section, my fault.
Your point 10 argument for opposing repeal is valid. There would be no shipbuilding. We would make as many ships as we do cell phones and TVs. I'm all for reforming or repealing, but not before dealing with the implicit security subsidy provided to all foreign ships by the US Navy. Place a discharge fee on all of the Liberian and other foreign flagged ships to pay for the US Navy. Then we'll see if the US shipbuilding and maintenance industry is truly that uncompetitive.
"There would be no shipbuilding."
Right now, the US accounts for 0.1% of global output, almost exactly on par with...Iran. No shipbuilding is where the JA has gotten us. Anyway, I'm skeptical the impact would be so dire: https://www.cato.org/blog/how-would-jones-act-reform-impact-us-shipbuilding
you said:
"As in, the price of gasoline on the east coast would be $0.63 lower without the Jones Act. That’s insane. Can you imagine what voters would do if they realized they were paying that much extra for gas?"
Your statement implies the cost to consumers at the pump would be $0.63 lower, but the supporting quote is talking about the price per barrel. There are 42 gallons to the barrel so a $0.63 price reduction per barrel would only result in a 1.5 cent per gallon reduction at the pump.
Yes, my mistake, it has been corrected (by deleting the relevant passage entirely)
Podcast episode for this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dwatvpodcast/p/repeal-the-jones-act-of-1920
> When the Jones Act was so waived, did the other laws also need to be waved?
Spelling: the last word should be spelled "waived".
In your discussion of compensating those harmed by the repeal, you focus on how small the currently-protected shippers and shipyards really are. But surely the bulk of the opposition will come from the very powerful trucking and railroad industries, who would have to face actual competition from domestic shipping. Those are the unions everyone is tiptoeing around, not the handful of domestic shipyards or whatever. Any plan to get the Jones Act repealed will have to have a plan to deal with truck and railroad unions.
So what's the real objection to the Jones Act? It can't be efficiency. The article proposed starting a dozen new federal subsidy programs to make up for the cutting of this one - anyone can tell, that's not gonna increase economic efficiency. And the article ignores the most stunningly obvious reason intra-national coastal trade is scarce: Our entire industrial base was sold off to our rivals & enemies, and our cities make very little goods that can be traded.
Is the sentiment in this article just another battle in the ongoing war against the few remaining high paying blue-collar jobs in America? (See the recent longshoremen strike.) Of course everyone knows Progressives hate the working class - and they hate it even more when the working man is financially comfortable.
Btw, this doesn't mean I am a big supporter of the Jones Act. I have no strong opinion. But I can see the arguments presented here against the Act are most unpersuasive.
"Our entire industrial base was sold off to our rivals & enemies, and our cities make very little goods that can be traded."
The US is the world's second-largest manufacturing country, and its output is only slightly off its all-time high: https://www.cato.org/publications/reality-american-deindustrialization
"To qualify, all passengers must also take a full round trip. I am curious what happens if someone decides not to return to the ship and the government finds out."
There was a report on Reddit 7 years ago of somebody missing a boat and receiving a $1,400 fine for exactly this:
https://old.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/8g9p3w/went_on_a_cruise_and_missed_the_boat_on_the_first/?rdt=39027
Here's a more recent example: https://dayton247now.com/news/nation-world/norwegian-cruise-lines-gault-charges-family-9000-after-allegedly-leaving-them-behind-remote-alaska-katchikan-lumberjack-show-tickets-shuttle-island-south-cincinnati-disembarked
The SS United States is currently being taken to Florida to be turned into an artificial reef. It has more value sunk than afloat.