The Jones Act: Debating the Lingering Effects of a 100-Year-Old Law

[@rafaeljimenez2769]

I am Puerto Rican and I know how screwed up this act is. Dominican Republic is right next to us and if we wanted to order a product from there, they'd have to first send it to the mainland US. It's easier for us to fly there and buy it. It's a money making scheme.

[@davidmdyer838]

I lived there for 5 years and saw how incredibly destructive it was, not to mention how expensive my cars were as a result. What has surprised me is that it is just as bad for the interior of the US but people don't recognize it because they can have things trucked it. It's more expensive than going by water, but people can at least get their goods. In Europe, 40% of goods are shipped between countries by water. the US has far superior waterways and only 2% of its goods are shipped by water. It's ridiculous. I post about this on my FB page regularly but it's very difficult to get people excited about the Jone Act and unions support it. If you have any ideas about how to make more noise about this I'd be glad to hear it.

[@brucenadeau2172]

that not how the jone act work i see no need for to be shipped

[@michaeldonovan7522]

That’s not how the jones act works

[@sciblue27anangrymanintheli78]

Thank you for educating us on laws we've never knew existed. We must educate our ppl and prepare our kids for their future so America can exist. Please don't stop

[@AntonioAkaPablo]

Surely we can at the very least, compromise on carving out exceptions for ports that are not a part of the contiguous United States.

[@humbughumbughumbug]

IT'S CABOTAGE! -Remy of ReasonTV

[@angelgonzalez-du1oo]

I think that the jones act shall be implemented only in time of war and other than that shall be free trade implemented according to Homeland Security laws. Puerto Rico is a Free state and an associated state of the United States, and we have our own ports, and we can reduce cost by letting other ships from other countries enter the ports and can be inspected by Homeland Security; and at the same time, it will create more jobs, and no one will lose their jobs. Repeal The johns Act.

[@ElPescado1997]

How will implementing the Jones Act only in times of war work? Where will the fleet of US owned, crewed, built, and operated ships come from? Who will crew them? Who will train the crews? Who will provide drydocks to the ships? And many other who and what questions. Repealing the Jones Act would certainly eliminate jobs. Thousands of US mariners would be out of work, unless of course you want to work the international minimum wage for seafarers of $600 a month. Not to mention the detrimental effects of would have on our way time readiness, national security, ship yards, etc.

[@michaeldonovan7522]

So you’re going to build and train an entire fleet in a matter of days … ok

[@parasocialsoftmachinechann2273]

3:24 Having RUM in HI cost "a little bit" more is probably not a bad price? Condescending id*ot, I hope this guy is not a lawyer lmao

[@Comm0ut]

Near zero Americans care about naval strategy, strategic sealift or anything but lowering shipping costs.

[@YankeeBigBird]

The Jones Act is Crap! I'm from Hawaii, and I know the economic effect of it has on the State! Same with the State of Alaska, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Marianas. It's crap, it only creates shipping monopolies and very high prices for the consumers that live in those places!

[@TheCuppycakedelight5]

I know , it's so infuriating . Wish we could do something to help those people.

[@jamesbaird5594]

The high cost is not a result of Jones act shipping. You’re a fool if you believe that Jones Act is the largest contributor.

[@TheCuppycakedelight5]

why is that?

[@jamesbaird5594]

TheCuppycakedelight5 the high cost is largely due to the remoteness of Hawaii. It costs money to transport stuff from the continents to Hawaii. Longshoreman contribute a much larger cost then the few cents difference between a domestic carrier vs a foreign carrier. Instead the Act helps Hawaiians by ensuring valuable blue collar job opportunities in both shipbuilding/repair, and at sea as mariners.

[@jamesbaird5594]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pn-4eYRuetSrhs0

[@adrianpale2342]

Stupidest law in the united states. This isn't just about ships. Because of this law, if you don't return home on the same cruise line, even if you are able to make it back home in the states via plane, then the government and cruise line both charge you around $800 so $1600. What the hell does that have to do with "protecting national security." It's stupid.

[@michaelstarnes2297]

it really screws hawaii and puerto rico. the guy who was supporting it acted as if it was just about rum being a little more expensive, but in reality it makes consumer prices for all of hawaii and PR much more expensive. Ships can't make a pit stop in hawaii.

[@MrSupernova111]

@@michaelstarnes2297 . Thanks for the clarification! Cheers!

[@Ayo22210]

That’s why the cost of living is so high in Hawaii, Alaska, Porto Rico, us vergin islands

[@masonwalker1301]

Wow just glad my professor pointed this way had no idea this existed

[@calebburkhart3875]

It hurts the Midwest we could use the Mississippi River basin for cargo

[@bxjourneys5909]

This Jones act affected us as cruisers. It is said that this mostly affects goods and shipments. It also affects us as cruisers in a serious way. Our family ended up in 2 hospitals while sailing on board 4 day cruise out of Miami. Next port was Key West. Because of this we could not get off ship in Key West. We boarded ship in Miami. We would both be fined 900 each to get off ship in Key West. Not to mention the cost of last minute travel expenses. It was going to be astronomical. This should be waived for cruisers. If you need helicopter help from ship, you still get fined by Jones act and hospital expenses. It is so wrong! This antiquated legislation needs to be changed for cruisers in an emergency!

[@jondeloso4302]

It hurts the people if Guam, high cost of shipping!

[@michaelnunnery6394]

Between US Ports So bearing in mind that it is highly unlikely that every cruise destination is going to reopen at the same time. If a cruise ship leaves Miami for example. Sails in circles for 4 nights on a cruise to nowhere and then returns to Miami. Has that cruise ship broken the law?

[@PhrAntoine]

I think so and that's why most cruises go somewhere else before returning

[@humbughumbughumbug]

Yes. Which is why the Jones Act is ridiculous. And it's not just "foreign vessels." It's any vessel that doesn't have three characteristics at the same time: American crews, American made boat, and carrying an American flag. If the ship is missing any one of these characteristics, the boat will be in violation of laws and they will be arrested.

[@humbughumbughumbug]

So for example a ship that's: - American crewed - flies and American flag - But has some steel in it that's not from America. Let's say that the ship delivering goods to NJ docked in South Carolina because of a medical emergency. It is now illegal to continue on to NJ. They would have to cruise over to Canada and then sail back down to NJ to avoid arrest.

[@bretrudeseal4314]

I don't think the Jones Act is the real problem here. The problem is that we don't have a merchant marine or ship building yards that can produce the kind of ships needed or in the volume needed. If we don't subsidize ship building, we are not going to get the ships, it is that simple. I don't think Hawaii and Puerto Rico should be under the Jones Act. I think they should be exempt.

[@lamontbowe8511]

Do you know how much cheaper oil would be right now if it wasn't for the Jones act.

[@ElPescado1997]

Normally (however unfortunately) we export much of the petroleum we produce and send it off of the other countries for a higher profit than can be fetched in the domestic markets. So they then imports oils from cheaper places (Middle East, Russia, etc). They can make more money by buying cheaper oil from other countries and selling our oil to expensive markets like Europe. However with this current embargo many countries are placing on Russian oil (and many other products) the oil that usually feeds us and much of the rest of the world is now gone. But we are still exporting our oil to European markets because it can get a higher profit. So now our own oil and fuel supplies (inland tanks and storage facilities) are dwindling faster than we can import oil from other countries. And according to Supply and Demand, price is ever increasing as we see. And now the supply is getting quite low. Let it also be known that we are actually producing more oil than EVER before. The Gulf is BOOMING. It isn't the current leading tardo that is responsible, as much as I don't like the guy and his administration. You can bet your sweet bippy that if he let the pipeline stay open, that oil would all be destined for the foreign market. That said, it is Obama and his clan that passed the legislation to let oil companies export our oil and buy cheaper foreign oil. The oil companies are going to use this situation (which they are directly causing!) to try to make more loopholes and likely a stepping stone to eliminate the Jones Act. And if they don't have to follow the Jones Act for the American market, that is more profit for them. Look past the political bullshit and see what actually drives the world: money.

[@onetournetwork-oneteam5953]

I was sent here for ap

[@mjaraz5442]

The act destroys the Puerto Rican economy. Import cost ends up costing 20% to the island.

[@javacup912]

Obviously, two differnt views. One from a politican stanpoint, the other from a consumer standpoint. I do agree that in the Jones Act , there are provisions that can be amdended, and other repealed alltogher, but with provistion to restore the law in case of war.

[@3lightsteps]

While the arguments were fairly well presented, due to time limitations, I would like to hear who wishes to change this..name the corporations...and how their profit benefits weigh against national security. I don't like the idea of too many foreign or domestic vessels up and down our shorelines. They would be difficult to monitor.

[@holycrapchris]

It's actually the other way around... there are a number of companies who want to keep it in place, because it benefits them specifically. The cost of the act is disbursed among millions of American people and business. But the cost for most is small, so it's not worth the time to hire lobbyists to fight it. As for foreign ships up and down the shoreline, that already happens. The Jones act is specifically about inter-port cargo delivery. Other vessels, like cruise ships, aren't covered.

[@christinajohnson2062]

The Jones Act could use a little tweaking, it's old dude, gotta help people in AK, HI ect. But the core value of it is inarguable. Banksters are those banging the drum for a change loudest

[@toyboytb]

May surprise you but foreign militaries are already moving up and down our coasts using Submarines. Jones act isnt doing squat for national security. Also we have laws allowing russian spy planes to survey the US from cold war.

[@brian-pu3yy]

I bet mayorkus has made things better with his nonpartisan style and his fair well thought out ideas. A pillar of justice, a man who would never use the long rigid fist nor boot of the federal government for power . This is a testament of a pure steady judgment in a man never seen before. We are blessed biden picked such a miracle of man. And the oceans are singing......lgb

[@trojanhell7639]

Isn’t jones act about shipping

[@humbughumbughumbug]

It's about protecting special interest groups at the expense of American citizens.

[@davidmdyer838]

@@humbughumbughumbug unions

[@Ayo22210]

End the jones act. Open up and free the market. It will be the equivalent of deregulating the the railroads in the 1970s.

[@lamontbowe8511]

That's why everything cost so much money

[@MrJoeylj]

I'm hearing two different answers

[@BrettyPOV]

MrJoeylj fantastic! Hear both sides and come to your own conclusion.

[@humbughumbughumbug]

The only correct one is to get rid of the Jones Act.

[@davidmdyer838]

presenting two sides of a story doesn't mean they have equal merit. Every defense of the Jones act was refuted if you listened, it's ridiculous and costly. It's the answer to so many of our infrastructure problems.

[@EricWeberGoogle]

Best to just get rid of US rail, trucking and airlines as well... Just have China take over, and with open borders we can have them supply the labor as well. Much cheaper for the consumer, and cheap is always the goal!

[@MrSupernova111]

LOL

[@humbughumbughumbug]

And someone is missing the point of getting rid of the evil Jones Act.

[@davidmdyer838]

Getting rid of the Jones Act isn't getting rid of US shipping, it's just the opposite. both guys in the video think we'd build more ships if we tossed the Jones Act. It's NOT forcing us to build more ships because when we create a monopoly we get by with the minimal amount of ships we have. If we get rid of Jones there will be much more internal shipping, we will need more ships, not the ocean-going kind that foreign countries can send. The Jones act doesn't guarantee US ships.

[@amybarringer1098]

I disagree with you saying that the Jones Act is not a contributor to National Security in present day. Perhaps you should look into this a little further.

[@yezzir5464]

Should there be a fuel shortage due to the Jones act, def a National Security Risk.

[@thumbtak]

@@yezzir5464 this has happened before, Massachusetts had to import Russian fuel due to a fuel shortage

[@ElPescado1997]

​@@thumbtakBecause we don't have enough Jones Act ships. The solution? Build more Jones Act ships. The more you build, the cheaper each unit is to produce. National security goes beyond fuel. From shipyards to delivering military cargo across the world, we can't rely on foreign ships and yards to do this for us. As we saw in Operation Desert Storm, where a foreign flagged ship (chartered by the US government) simply refused to enter the war affected waters. As a result our troops went without crucial supplies and equipment, and the entire operation was a bit of a fiasco.

[@thumbtak]

@@ElPescado1997 The Jones Act has caused Domestic shipbuilding to reach prices so high that demand for such ships has cratered. There are only 7 major shipyards in the US and 4 are reserved for Military Vessels. Our Shipbuilding capacity as a nation has been demolished over time by the Jones Act. We literally cannot expand the JA fleet in an affordable or timely matter.

[@thumbtak]

@@ElPescado1997 a VAST majority of shipping vessels used to supply Desert Storm were foreign, borrowed from our allies. One of the main reasons for this is the Jones Act. The JA fleet is not only small, but the lack of new construction JA vessels has created an aging fleet. The average age of a JA vessel is nearly 30 years old, while foreign ships have an average age of 12 years. The newer foreign vessels are faster, more efficient, and less costly to maintain.

[@spencerking2692]

You want to get rid of the Jones act because it will be cheaper huh? Well while we are at it lets let foreign airlines do domestic flights or foreign truck companies carry cargo because that would be cheaper too.

[@Deadeye313]

@Turd Ferguson drones are great until the sh*t hits the fan and the robot lacks the knowledge, experience, wherewithal and imagination to fix the issue. When drones become Star Wars level droids, then, maybe, we can put humans in Droid hands, but not until then unless a human is in the loop.

[@MrSupernova111]

@Turd Ferguson . Clueless!

[@MrSupernova111]

@Turd Ferguson . Maybe automation can replace your job too and you can join your friends in the unemployment line.

[@humbughumbughumbug]

Psst they probably already do. *Watches Canadian truck roll by*

[@humbughumbughumbug]

Not to mention a lot of trucks are manufactured in Europe (Volvo, Mercedes) or Japan (Hino). Those would be illegal to use for transporting goods if there was a "truck" version of the Jones Act.

[@christianhernandez3044]

Those who say that it isn’t national security haven’t read about falling Roman Empire when Rome sold out its army to the Visigoth Alaric under Theodosius. When Alaric came to sack Rome three times, no Roman army came against him: he was the Roman army

[@davidmdyer838]

That's not what this is at all, we don't use our merchant ships for military purposes anymore. We build FEWER vessels because of the Jones Act, not more, because there is no incentive to compete.

[@moontakeen]

Jones was right....face it

[@francisglorian3930]

Waaaht happen!!! Tell the true !!! Talk about gentrification, talk about when i grow up we ar 4.000.0000 people bu now wexare 2.500m and the gentrification is here