91–100 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland is a NATO ally; but sure Canada makes sense too. And Norway and Sweden and whoever else might have the skills and experience.
Canada is a founding member of NATO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about we let Finland build the icebreakers We can't. Jones Act.
We can change the law. It happens every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other industries seem to be fine competing with other countries. Would there be some greater investment in manufacturing in the US if there were no labor (or environmental) constraints? Sure, but the fact that other industries compete just fine makes me believe it's simply not an economically efficient allocation of resources for labor heavy manufacturing to be done in the US.
What industries? Steel? Protectionism. Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism. Agriculture? Protectionism. Why? Because efficiency is a tradeoff where you give up security and resiliency.
The US imports steel, and the protectionist regime almost killed the US steel: https://reason.com/2024/01/02/protectionism-ruined-u-s-steel...
> Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism.
That's relatively new, and it _will_ lead to disaster. The US is already falling behind in battery tech compared to China and South Korea.
> Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism.
Need I remind you of Detroit and its handling of cheap Japanese imports in 70-s and 80-s?
Aircraft are only slightly protectionist, the US companies can (and do) buy foreign aircraft (Airbuses and Embraers are commonplace).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What industries? Steel? Protectionism. Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism. Agriculture? Protectionism. Why? Because efficiency is a tradeoff where you give up security and resiliency.
Service industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument among the anti-Jones contingent is that our only real hope of having a globally competitive shipbuilding industry is to repeal it and all the other things preventing our shipyards and merchant marine from having incentive to compete globally. As it is, there is a slow trickle of work for domestic shipyards that is based solely on policy (ships that legally HAVE to be US-made, whether for Jones Ac…
More realistically without the Jones act, ships wouldn't be built or operated by the US at all. International vendors can do this cheaper. You'd instead see all domestic shipping be entirely dependant on third-party international operators paying third-world wages to third-world crews, and you'd have next to zero recourse against them if they, say, run one of their ships into a bridge, or spill a few million litres o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Leading to good commercial results” is definitely not the rationale for the Jones Act.
Read the wiki link. [1] The goal was to have a globally competitive merchant marine based on a home grown ship building industry to call on in case of war. Trying to balance both sides. The end result is that that home grown ship building industry has all but disappeared together with the educated population required to crew it. [1]; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
If you want to bring it back, you have to deglobalize. (Good luck with that!)
> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important. This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on t…
> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except if you can't move stuff around without support of 3rd party nations, that's defense crippling. If you want to be a global power, you require great navy, both civilian and military. That's been true since 1500s and will likely remain true for many years to come. So question is, do we throw out Jones Act and slowly stop being World Superpower or leave it and pay higher upfront costs in certain places? That's pol…
What you’re missing is that our ability to move stuff around has already deteriorated to almost nil, precisely due to Jones Act and shipbuilding workforce unionization. We already cannot build vessels we need at quantities we need. This is already reality today. Repealing Jones Act cannot make our situation much worse. It can, however, make us much better off, by for example allowing US companies to buy foreign ships…
> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important. This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on t…
Globalization would have selected the experts rather than whatever random Germans and inexperienced firms present.
This is all about isolationism.
> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…
Well, there is “a logic,” whether you agree with it or not, that it’s strategically important even if commercially suboptimal for us to have a domestic shipbuilding capability.