Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Implications of Republican sweep, part II

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM- The following is an excerpt from the document in Mark Hemphill's post above that apparently you didn't bother to read. I doubt the WTO wants to take up arms against 50+ countries including the U.S. LC << Is the Jones Act uniquely American or do other nations have similar laws? The concept of Cabotage is common to virtually all nations with a Merchant Marine. Nearly 50 countries throughout the world have laws similar to the Jones Act. >> The above from: http://www.lcaships.com/jones.html#anchor1 [/quote] As loathe as I am to get into yet another "links" war, here goes: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-66.000/hpw104-66_0.HTM Some decisive quotes regarding the true costs of the Jones Act: "In many of our markets, Jones Act qualified ships are simply not available, not timely, not the right vessel, or just too expensive." "Americans own the third-largest fleet in the world, some 1,190 ships, but the Jones Act prohibits nearly 90 percent of these ships, these American-owned ships, from trading in the United States. " "The Jones Act, which reduces the number of ships available, increases the cost not only of ships, but truck and rail, since it shifts cargo and reduces their direct competition, costs Americans billions each year in lost production, foregone competitiveness, sales lost to foreign competitors. Tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs in steel, autos, agriculture, timber, mining, and energy#8212;all jobs effectively exported overseas to cheap foreign labor." "In California, American President Lines has a substantial operation in the 10th District of California. When they wanted to enter the Jones Act trade in Hawaii, a billion-dollar trade, Sea-Land and Matson Navigation Company, who will testify later, and which enjoy, respectively, a 32 and 68 percent market share, kept them out." "Currently 75 percent of food aid shipments must be transported on U.S.-flag vessels. The companies that operate U.S.-flag vessels routinely charge the Federal Government from 100 to 300 percent over market rates to transport the Government cargoes." "There is something wrong with a law when American livestock farmers in one region of the country cannot get water transportation access to American grain grown elsewhere. For some ports, like the Great Lakes, Jones Act vessels are just not available for bulk transportation; thus, Mr. Coble, in your District you can't access grain from that region by water. They are, however#8212;your farmers, other farmers#8212;free to purchase grain from Canada or Argentina, our competitors, again creating loss of sales and American jobs. It makes no sense for a cattle producer in Hawaii#8212;they can ship their cattle for processing cheaper than they can to the mainland. U.S. processing jobs are lost. Our potato producers on Long Island are kept out of the market in Puerto Rico because Canada can underprice them with cheaper shipping costs." And so on and so on..... Of course, the current U.S. carriers will argue the opposite, that Jones Act repeal was cause massive economic headaches (kind of sounds similar to the crap'n'bull lament of U.S. railroads' opposition to any kind of open access!) If you want to read the last attempt to reform U.S. maritime shipping laws, here's a link to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998: http://www.americanshipper.com/Shipping_Act_1998.htm It is interesting that the inclusion of "antitrust immunity" keeps the caveats of the Jones Act in place. What really stands out is that the Jones Act provisions may actually be inhibiting new U.S. flagged carriers from entering markets already monopolized by existing U.S. carriers. What you will see in the next round of maritime deregulation is a watered down version of Jones Act reform, including allowing foreign flagged vessels to carry cargo between U.S. ports if it is part of a larger triangulation move that includes docking at a foreign port. This may mean that non-U.S. carriers can transport Alaskan cargo to the West Coast, as long as the ship stops off at a Canadian port and "reclassifies" the cargo there. Also, as an aside, you can expect another attempt by congress to fold the Federal Maritime Commission into the STB, as fiscal belt tightening comes into fruition during a second Bu***erm.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag