This boring gray boat is actually super weird
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Boatman rises.
More info and sources at bottom.
Find me elsewhere:
Instagram: / philedwardsinc
Twitter: / philedwardsinc
Patreon: / philedwardsinc
Where I get my music (Free trial affiliate link):
share.epidemic...
My camera, as of February 2022 (affiliate link):
amzn.to/3HDcWVz
My main lens: amzn.to/3IteXEK
My main light: amzn.to/3pjO0M8
My main light accessory: amzn.to/3M6eL0j
Here's a playlist of a lot of the Jones Act videos I mention:
• Jones Act Funlist
Planet Money Jones Act:
www.npr.org/tr...
Rather than saying "Just Google It," I usually say, "Just Vesselfinder it."
www.vesselfind...
Sample Anti-Jones act website:
www.endjonespr...
OECD on the Jones Act:
read.oecd-ilib...
Cato Scholar who doesn't like the act:
/ cpgrabow
So, Dominion Energy customers get to cough up half a billion dollars while the turbine manufacturer contracted to install them cant use the equipment (assets) they already have and are familiar with.
This definitely seems like the most expedient and productive way to bring renewables online.
Yeah I know nothing about how that's funded (or if the IRA changes the economics down the line). Slower for sure though at the very least.
yeah -- that's the first thing I thought about when I saw this video lol. the turbine situation is a mess.
@@PhilEdwardsInc You can be sure the ratepayers will ultimately foot the bill...
Meanwhile (from Fox). "A Virginia-based energy company gave its CEO over $3 million in bonuses in part for meeting ESG goals as company stock plummeted, it faced accusations it _overcharged customers by $1 billion"_
"Dominion CEO Robert Blue received nearly $7 million in compensation in 2021, including a $1.75 million bonus partially thanks to meeting ESG goals,"
@@jimurrata6785ESG is something of a joke. There's a popular right-wing conspiracy theory around them, claiming that all companies are slaves to ESG which will force them to go woke, make the movie characters trans and put insects in the food. But really, you've seen the true purpose already: It's a meaningless score which is mostly self-assessed and trivial to manipulate, allowing even the worst of companies to give themselves a glowing appraisal and declare their stamp of ethical behavior to the world.
this, it seems to be the height of stupidity not to waive the act for the installation of these wind turbines. there are definitely some industrial interests going on here.
So the Jones act is making a Seattle-Portland boat too costly, so they use trucks instead? just the environmental impact of that alone is a good enough argument to repeal & replace.
yes i think there's definitely an environmental argument (but that gets complicated too!)
@@PhilEdwardsInc I can imagine it gets pretty complicated. Thanks for replying!
It’s not very simple. The Seattle to Portland by truck is pretty fast. If you use a boat you need the logistics at either end of the ports. It might not be as efficient for fuel but it is time efficient.
@@captiannemo1587 yeah, I realized this point right after I posted my comment.
@@captiannemo1587 Seattle to Portland isn't the only shipping route that has a lot of trucks instead of boats, of course. What about New York to Miami? Seattle to LA? At some point, using any available boat would be more time and fuel efficient
The easy first step is to remove the restrictions on where the boats have to be made and replace it with a tax for foreign vessels / crews that transfer between US ports. Then US based ships still get an advantage but the rate can be tuned to best service the purpose. Maybe ships heading back to china from CA can drop stuff off at HI for a reduced tax vs. a foreign made ship that is just transporting back and forth to HI only.
@@123nickman123 This doesn't address the problem as to why US shipbuilding would fall so far behind that we couldn't compete without a over-restrictive law. Agree with it or not, every other industry that is protected this way is done so with tariffs aka taxes. That system is much more flexible in extreme circumstances like natural disasters while also generating revenue all while achieving the same goal.
123 nickerman123 is correct. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
@@rfarevalo How many lead smelters do you think are currently operating in the US? With a tax/tariff we could use the money to build military-grade transport ships to use in wartime while still providing the same incentive to use US based ships in peacetime.
@@noControl556 Your argument is indefensible so you change to an unrelated tangent. I'll bite. the number of lead smelters doesn't matter. What matter is their industrial capacity and that of nearby allies to meat the needs of the USA. How many Boeing jet factories are currently operating in the USA? It doesn't matter because the two factories meet our production needs being some of the largest in the world. (Do you understand now?)
@@noControl556 Please leave the comments for the adults. if you are under 13 years of age, you cannot legally be on TH-cam.
I think it's the Jones act (or a similar US law) that has massive implications for the Canadian cruise ship industry. Without it, foreign flagged cruise ships could just leave Seattle and go Straight to Alaska without stopping in Victoria or originating in Vancouver. Both cities have pretty big cruise industries as a result.
oh i hadn't thought of alaska - i almost had a long digression about the los angeles to hawaii route, which is the same thing
@@PhilEdwardsInc as an American visiting Alaska on an Alaskan cruise, I have to have a passport, so I can enter Canada, because nobody operates American flag vessels. Turns out the best way to re-enter the United States is on the Amtrak Cascades from Vancouver to Seattle. On the other hand, you may have never had the experience of having a train stop at a derail, veritably in the shadow of the Peace Arch, while American border patrol in flak jackets run down the hill to board the train to “cheerfully” welcome American citizens back to their home country.
wow! @@five-toedslothbear4051
Which is messed up. Imagine having a significant sector of your economy built on the potentially shifting sand of the side effect of a foreign governments policy🤨
@@five-toedslothbear4051care to explain the last part of your story in a little greater detail?? Im wondering about this derailment and why border patrol boarded the train….
The Jones Act is secretly a maritime heritage tool. Without it the US side of the Great Lakes wouldn't be a museum for ancient, inefficient cargo ships.
Ok so please explain how the US Great Lakes Fleet is inefficient. For example what makes ships like The Missabi Miner, or alike bad. Because they are very well suited for Great Lakes usage.
@@nicholasuszko are you trying to say that modern tech wouldn't be more efficient?
@@edwilkinson1760 I'm not entirely sure what the original poster's point is, but the boats are in fact efficient at carrying huge bulk cargo like iron ore, coal, stone, etc. compared to rail or trucking. In terms of being "ancient" I think this is simply a factor of the lakes' fresh water being less corrosive to boat's hulls than salt water. That's why there's still 50+ year old great lake freighters operating. Also, to be sure, there are plenty of modern lakers being built. In this sense, then yes, the Jones Act is helping to maintain a shipbuilding industry in the upper Midwest, most notably Wisconsin. But Chinese shipbuilders have outnumbered the most recent freighters built operating between Canadian ports, or between the US and Canada.
They're so cool!
I wasn't comparing them to rail or trucking, which is an entirely different conversation, I was comparing them to the modern ships that CSL and Algoma Central have put into service. 40+ years of usage will take its toll, even if fresh water isn't as corrosive as salt water.
The benefits to the Wisconsin shipbuilding industry certainly haven't translated to new ships for the US Great Lakes fleet. The first new US-built laker in almost 40 years was launched in 2022. Companies are sailing 50+ year old ships because they can't afford to replace them with new US-built ships. You will have a hard time pointing to "plenty of modern lakers" that are under construction in Wisconsin right now.
Phil, don't worry, I love your personal channel spiel.
It was really weird the first time I heard it, because I didn’t know about his other work. Sounded like a humble “do you know who I am?”
But that said, I get it - have to make a clear line between the bodies of work or else sticky situations can arise.
Here here.
I used to live in Guam and the Jones Act was a point of discussion there as well like Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
So interesting, as always. Thanks Phil!
Go to "whats going on in shipping" and find out the truth. This is bullshit from the Cato think tank.
The strategy this vessel uses are similar to the strategies employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. In fact the activities of this vessel are quite a bit tamer compared to the hijinks Neptune's Navy gets up to. High seas vigilante activity is not as uncommon as you think. Would be cool to see a video on this as well.
Mmmm, sea shepherd is a different group now without Paul Watson. Sea Shepherd now works WITHIN government circles to accomplish their goals.
This isn’t necessarily better or worse, it just means they are more legitimate now than they were when Ady Gil got sunk. 🙄
There's a connection to the military industrial complex I think you left off as well. It is in the long term defence interests of the US to maintain a minimum level of ship building capacity, for when world war 3 kicks off and they have to massively ramp up ship production. Admittedly the Jones Act is a pretty eccentric way to preserve ship building capacity, straight forward subsidies would work too.
The Jones Act isn’t just eccentric, it’s downright counterproductive. The US merchant marine fleet that the military could call upon to transport supplies in case of war is a lot smaller and crappier than it would otherwise be. In addition, the shipyards that supply US commercial ships are way less efficient than foreign ship builders as the American companies are so effectively insulated from competition. So, the US may be able to crank out a few extra subpar ships if a war breaks out thanks to the Jones Act. This would probably be a moot point as 7 of the 10 largest shipbuilders and 5 of the 10 largest shipping companies are based in countries allied to the US. Not to mention the US has one of the largest and most advanced navies, which is supplied and supported by US shipbuilders.
So, in exchange for a, at best, negligible national security advantage all Americans, especially those outside the continental US, face higher costs as well as more traffic and pollution from trucks.
You are 100% correct. That is why this video is flawed. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
bs@@rfarevalo
I think if you look at Philly shipyard, they’re doing pretty darn good work. Low cost should not be the only factor in ship procurement.
I don't know who gave you criticism but I don't want you to stop. I've enjoyed every single thing you put out. Please continue to just be you ❤
Who is criticizing you for claiming this is a personal channel???? You're clearly doing this for fun, whether you profit from it or not, you're choosing to do this for your own personal enjoyment when you don't have to vs you're actual job and probably main source of income doing this over at Vox.
I love your videos, always happy to see a new upload. Thank you for taking the time and effort you put in to making these wonderful videos!
haha i'm feeling bad i called em out- i think they just thought the same phrase seemed a bit zombie like seeing it in video after video (and i started to agree!)
@PhilEdwardsInc well, saying "this is my personal channel" is way more eloquent than giving the "this video is in no way produced by Vox" every time 😅
This was BEYOND good 😂❤
I think you have a bright future in Batman voice acting specifically for educational documentaries 😂
Have a great day Phil!
No matter what people think about the law, being a full time _volunteer_ snitch is just the lamest, weak-sauce hobby
Algorithmic punch!
I am curious about why someone would give you flack about the "personal channel" moniker, but neat video all the same.
I think you kinda let yourself relax in these videos,* looks at lego batman *, compared to some of your professional reporting, and i think that has actually allowed you to develop a more personal and relaxed tone in your professional work.
That mught be an over analytical reach, but thanks for vidoe in any case.
Interesting and well produced -- keep having fun with learning and teaching! As for a solution, I suppose I fall in the "repeal" and replace category as well. If we can't keep up with foreign companies willing to move cargo at a lower price then that is on us. It is analogous to allowing a foreign company to own a railroad or a trucking company that operates inside the U.S. Foreign ownership with C.E.O.s, managers and employees who are legal to be/work inside the U.S. I think that is probably the way forward. Oh, and the boatman probably wouldn't continue to exist in that case, because they don't have the authority to board vessels.
I agree. I think that a lack of a better idea or agreement on one, holds a lot of things hostage, not just the Jones Act.
Really enjoyed this one Phil. 👍
Yeah. I came to read the comments hoping for something intelligent. Im leaving disappointed. Also….I’m a captain. I like the jones act but I also see it’s flaws but no one can offer a better solution. At some point we need to recognize mr jones as the genius he was.
It seems it can and should be amended to allow for some corner cases like shipping to non-contiguous states.
And the turbines can probably just be reclassified to not be considered a domestic port, but rather a maintenance site.
Loved the batman parallel, hilarious!
🦇
I've said it before there is no subject Phil can't get me interested. Another great video and the folks who are thrown off by your personal channel spiel can chill.
I bet there were some fairly vigorous inter-organizational confabs about whether to make the vigilante boat a coal roller or not.
the American system is biased in favor of jobs and against the cost of living. whenever there's a trade-off between those two, they always go with jobs. the Jones Act is a perfect example.
it's because any given "jobs" act has political backing from specific industries who care about specific laws, whereas "cost of living" is in the broad interest of everyday people and the result of the amalgamation of everything. there are no cost of living lobbyists.
and then they wonder why, despite approaching record low unemployment, people are still unhappy with the economy.
No. Your are wrong. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
@@rfarevalo i dont understand this logic. no one makes this argument about, for example, airplanes. the US is a world leader in plane building and operating. and, while the aerospace industry was certainly kickstarted by US govt initiatives (and wars), they do not need laws that force US airports to use only US planes for domestic flights in order to be competitive.
meanwhile, the US shipbuilding industry is fragile and inefficient, living off the Jones Act with absolutely no incentive to become globally competitive. if the US wanted a wartime merchant marine fleet, they'd be better off commissioning those boats the way they do the rest of their navy, and not forcing that burden onto all peacetime interstate shipping.
thank god that when the Jones Act was passed, air travel was in its infancy and Boeing was only four years old. otherwise they might have lobbied to get the same protection and we'd have two fragile, inefficient transportation industries rather than one.
@@rfarevalo Except US shipbuilding capacity is not doing so well right now...
What is your point a235? Are you commenting on something you know nothing about? US Shipyards are currently very busy and highly profitable with more ship orders than they can handle (Particularly for military vessels). All U.S. Ship yards are building at near capacity. Congress reports the limiting factor is skilled workforce shortages. So what is your point? Your stupid statement is senseless and communicates nothing relevant to the discussion. By what measure do you think US Shipbuilding capacity is not doing well, if it is doing very well judging my the volume of ships being produced, income earned, and jobs created. @@a2e5
If you are not 13 years of age you cannot legally have a TH-cam account. Please leave the discussion to the adults.@@a2e5
Thank you Phil
Personally, I would imagine that having the Jones Act be only for transfer between ports on the mainland 48. If you have a boat that goes LA-Hawaii, Miami- Puerto Rico, Seattle- Alaska for example, then it should not be bound by the Jones Act, as it only makes living there harder and more expensive
certainly seems like a good start.
The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
European shipping seems to go just fine without any kind of jones act, and it largely just makes US less competitive, say a ship actually are going from Vancover to Portland, then it could stop by in seattle, picking up goods and transport it practically for free down there if there was reserve capacity,
I do believe there are some EU cabotage laws too.
Europe doesn't have to be prepared to fight China and Russia over the Pacific Ocean and thousands of miles. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
Thank you for telling me about cabotage. I totally didn't need to know that, but I also totally needed to know that.
CABOTAGE
@@PhilEdwardsInc if a cabbage and a cottage had a baby.
It affects a lot of cruise ship routes too. You can't have a Caribbean-registered ship pick up US passengers at a US port and then travel to another US port (Seattle to Alaska), they have to originate or stopover in Vancouver first
That’s a Good thing.
There is a good upside to the Jones Act in the sense that OSHA is a thing on US ships. Working conditions on a Panama flagged vessel aren't nearly as good. Same goes for wages. So there is the part where the work is being done under better conditions and by people who are getting paid a decent wage for it. As opposed to people being borderline exploited, working insane hours in unsafe conditions.
A decent solution might be to allow for the construction of the vessels in a friendly nation, and then still have them US flagged and crewed.
You Are 100% correct. US Regulation is safe and fair. Have fun being flagged under Nigeria or Ecuador. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
Always love your personal interests being shared with all of us. So interesting, as always. Thanks Phil!.
You rock Phil, listen to the constructive stuff, ignore the haters. Thanks for always teaching me something.
Worked in the GoM doing sub sea installs. This boat would tie up next to us frequently. Part of our projects were pre-surveys for potential wind installations. Lost of US oil work has compliant ships but wind doesn't and that's where there is a lot of hurt.
The videos have always felt personal to me! I have no idea what to do here because I'm in Kansas. This isn't really a thing we have to deal with.
We are family friends the Jones family who originally helped create the act way back when. The family still has a shipyard here in Seattle/ballard Washington. Still building boats to this day. Pretty cool to see you covering this.
Merchant Marine cadet here, very cool video! Very informative and relevant for 3/M License-seekers and landlubbers alike!
Shifting to a different topic, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act undergoes frequent updates, having been introduced in 1999. With this in mind, why can't we also consider updating the Jones Act in specific aspects to address logistical concerns?
The biggest thing about the Jones Act is it allows there to be a US flagged ship industry where in times of need such as war or disaster the US government can seize or require these US flag ships to be used for supply vessels, think LIBERTY ships WWII. Especially in the current world environment the US needs options like this. The use of foreign vessels to supply the military in times of war will not happen.
This was a great one, Phil! At first, I wasn't sure where the batman joke was going but it ended perfectly! Stay vigilant!
I’d argue an example of what could happen without something that is similar to the Jones Act is NAFTA. NAFTA had good intentions (at least that’s how it was presented in the press) for free trade. Unfortunately, what has happened is breaking the trucking industry, made many of the southern highways unsafe, and allowed for other insidious illegal activities. NAFTA isn’t all bad, but what it has become is a cautionary tale that could be repeated if the Jones Act is just summarily dropped.
Who's giving Phil gruff about saying this is a personal channel? We'll challenge them all to fisticuffs and/or fútbal
haha it wasn't too mean they were just tired of me saying the same thing
Thanks for another interesting video, Phil. A bit confusing, but thanks for trying to educate us on the Jones Act. I appreciate all the hard work you put into shooting your videos and editing them. Great job!
I think there are some things missing from this discussion that may not be well known outside wind and maritime circles.
First, working conditions/schedules/pay for american sailors on US vessels is drastically better than many sailors from poorer countries experience. Many americans may get 1month or shorter work rotations while a philipino or nigerian may have to sail for 6months at a time while being paid 1/10 the amount. This disparity is part of that cost difference between a jones act compliant vessel and others.
Second, while things are changing, the offshore wind industry is dominated by europe all the way from the parent companies that own the windfarms down to the offshore site survey and engineering. The jones act is one of the pressures that encourages what most people watching this video probably want from the large government subsidies being poured into wind: a larger domestic renewable energy industry.
Obviously there are always issues and some inprovements that can be made. We just need to make sure we realize what we might give up in pursuit of the short term goal of turbines ASAP.
You are 100% correct. What the video and ignorant commenters leave out is that US regulation is superior, fair, and safer. Have fun being flagged under Egypt or Ecuador. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
This is a personal channel, i don't understand people getting annoyed by Phil saying that. Love all the videos Phil makes
It's wild to me that you used a Batman figure from Lego Dimensions to film this. 🤣 With so many different, cheaper versions available, I have to think you just liked the game and had it already.
i didn't i'm afraid - i guess it was just fate that he and i would meet
Personal channel 👏🏽 I’m here for this! 😊
Hi Phil, this is an excellent video on a topic that I wasn't expecting on your channel. It has more of a "Johnny Harris" feel to it. You covered it really well.
I don't think there are any shades of grey here: the Jones Act is pure garbage. You don't have to be a libertine to think so either. I hated it before but now that it is messing with renewable energy adoption, I think it really has to go fast - although I feel a bit sorry for the company that is wasting a fortune build the "Jones Act Compliant" wind turbine-building ship. If we are really concerned about the Chinese and the Russians taking over interstate shipping commerce, we can specifically exclude some nations, but this exclusion should not apply to European and Canadian and Mexican ships.
Sounds like you've really studied this issue in-depth and have a firm understanding of everything involved, since you found out about this 12 hours ago on a 10 minute TH-cam video. Keep fighting the good fight.
@mercere is 100% correct. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
@@rfarevalo I have heard the national defense argument before, of course, but I have always thought it weak tee. First, it should not apply to ships that aren't actually engaged in moving goods like the wind turbine construction vessels that Phil talked about in the video. It also should not include Canada at all. It should not include any NATO country at all. It should not apply to any of our other military allies. If you want to exclude China and Russia and a few bad actors, fine, but that isn't the Jones Act.
If we really want to create a merchant navy for national defense then we should pay for it via taxes like any other public good and those taxes should be paid by all Americans, not just Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans.
@@michaelhiggins9188 You are a fool. A ship that carry wind turbines today, can easily transport jet plane wings, rocket boosters, and missile flaring tomorrow. You obviously do not understand how our civilization transports large industrial goods and bulk commodities. The fact that one turbine construction vessel has problems with the law, doesn't mean the law itself isn't beneficial 95% of the time. Good thing we have policy experts who are more knowledgable than you and elected representatives to make the big decisions on our federal laws. Yes we all pay extra for the Jones Act (including California, Washington, Tennessee, Arizona, etc)? Do you not realize this? Is this TH-cam video your only source on information to have you form a flawed opinion that you pontificate online?
Fantastic. Batman had me dying. Cool lockers.
I'll never be able to watch a "HISHE" episode without hearing "because I'm boatman" now.
Thanks.
The best argument in its favour is the maintenance of a merchant marine and large ocean-going shipbuilding capability is an important strategic asset for a maritime nation, especially one that intends to project power. In peacetime its inefficient. Free markets almost always do a better job keeping costs down for all
I've actually captained that vessel for a short time, before it was the Jones Act Enforcer. It used to be the LOOP Security. We would patrol the Louisiana Offshore Oil Pipeline for people entering illegally. As for the Jones act itself, too many people miss the idea of keeping a trained US fleet of mariners available. Without the Jones Act, companies will replace US mariners, like myself, with foreigners that they can pay for pennies on the dollar. Sounds good in theory, until we need to start moving military equipment. You do NOT want to rely on foreigners to do that job. It takes thousands of Mariners to keep the military supplied, that is a main reason the Jone Act is relevant.
I owned a Marine Construction Company building docks and Seawalls which required Jones Act compliance insurance… ridiculous rates
I started watching with your Pantone video, and I think any criticism you're getting you should ignore. I think you're great, and as a relatively small channel the content that you put out is very high quality.
Canada has a similar law where foreign ships are allowed if they are imported and tariffs are paid, just like planes and trucks in the US
As a Puerto Rican the Jones act is #notcoolbreh
Phil thought we would not notice the subtle messaging with the crimson-maroon red Tom Scott t-shirt in the thumbnail
This feels like one of those political things where it seems obvious that it should be repealed, like Daylight Savings Time, but won't because for some reason too many people are emotionally attached to it. There's not reason that it couldn't be amended a bit though. The Jones act could, and should, be permanently waved for Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Maybe do a ten year carveout for offshore wind to give industry enough time to phase in domestic installation craft?
“Unintended Consequences” should be the new USA official motto.
The Jones Act. Without it there'd be NO US Flagged, crewed and built merchant hulls. You've illustrated the downward trend WITH the Act. Depending on foreign flagged and/or crewed hulls to carry vital domestic cargoes in times of emergency or conflict is a BAD policy. The Act has inarguably failed to preserve our merchant fleet though and something needs to change.
I believe this might be what caused the BP oil spill in the gulf to be so bad. The Americans wouldn’t allow specialised European oil clean up ships to come in and help at the start.
Cabotage laws are common, they apply to air, sea and land. It’s why other countries airlines can’t take US domestic air routes and Mexican trucks can’t take US internal routes. Most countries have them.
This video made me incredibly happy, in the way only a video from you can do, Phil.
I'm Swedish and I live in Norway, so this really has nothing/very little to do with me. But it all sounds really... Dumb. Sorry to all Jones Act-fans, but I really do not see why this is such an important thing to hold onto? Sounds like it causes a lot of problems, and even though it solves _some_ problems, there *has* to be a better way to do things. Or am I just way off the beat here? My brain doesn't really work right now, I've been in bed with high fever and sleeping literally the entire day _(still have a massive fever)_ and woke up just now _(1.45 in the middle of the night),_ so if someone thinks I'm being an idiot, I probably am, and I invite you to please, enlighten me! :)
haha get well soon!
I've started to really enjoy the spiel at the end, feels like a stamp of approval. Keep up the good work! I've been enjoying every upload since i've found your channel, and I'm excited for each new release.
Thanks for the interesting video. I think that a lot of concern about repealing the Jones act is centered around smaller countries that are tax-havens for the shipping industry. Think of how most cruise ships are flagged and registered in Bermuda because the fees there are so much cheaper and the regulations less strict. A big focus should perhaps be placed on leveling the shipping playing field internationally before any positive change can accomplished domestically.
Not only tax havens, but legal havens that allow non-compliance with US labor standards and similar legal protections.
@@fnsmikethis was my concern. US ships cost more because we pay the workers more.
So the other ships arent getting the same standards, which could bring costs down but its morally terrible.
I also dont get how mandating that american ships must be used would decrease the use of american ships, if anything it would maintain a level.
@@Khronogiyou could change it to allow ships built elsewhere and still require the other requirements, Would greatly reduce the cost.
Allow foreign shipping from mainland to offshore territories and Alaska.
This why one way Alaska cruise ships go from Alaska to Vancouver. We did that, and then took a bus to Seattle. The route and stops were a lot better than one starting and ending in Seattle. I guess you probably cover this in the other video mentioned at the end of this one.
I remember that Polymatter video. Had no idea that the whole situation was that much stupider. Yet another reason that I'll never immigrate to America.
I love your personal channel spiel! Never change, unless you wanna!
I think the best thing to replace the Jones Act with would be direct subsidies. (I would say it be much better for the economy to just not replace it with anything, but I do buy a little bit into the argument that we should have domestic shipbuilding capabilities for national security.) The costs would be more equitably distributed across the US, rather than concentrated mostly on Hawaii, Alaska, and US territories. The Jones Act has been very obviously useless in terms of protecting American shipbuilding capabilities; most US shipbuilders primarily make US navy vessels and yachts for a reason. By directly subsidizing US ships, for instance by commissioning cargo ships and auctioning them off directly to shipping companies, we would actually be able to grow that industry, increasing competition and economies of scale to hopefully offset some of the costs of the subsidies.
Fascinating unintended consequences (and if you work Batman in you always get a Like, haha)... one of which is the consequence on my curious mind. Jones has got to be among the most prevalent American surnames... yet in all our history and legislation... THIS one is the "Jones Act" that everyone knows and can reference without having to say, "No, not that Jones Act, this Jones Act." It got me thinking... if you took some of the most popular surnames in America and just added various signifies like "Act", "State vs.", etc. what would pop up as the ones we understand to be THE "Smith Act" etc.? If I started a presentation to a senate committee about the "Edwards Act"... what would I be talking about?
Lol, I'm gonna blow your mind because I learned, during this, that the only other Jones Act is a 1917 act that gave Puerto Ricans US citizenship (and thus was really important and is occasionally called the Jones Act). guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/jones-shafroth-act#:~:text=President%20Woodrow%20Wilson%20signed%20the,with%20a%20bill%20of%20rights.
@@PhilEdwardsInc Mind blown! Honestly surprised there are no other Jones Acts of note! (and I knew you would've checked, haha)
The feeder barges used in offshore wind is actually faster construction than a regular vessel going back to port.
You ignore the reason Jones Act Compliance is so expensive. It requires compliance with US labor laws (maximum hours worked, minimum wages paid, etc). We can reduce the cost of manufacturing in the US if we eliminate minimum wage.
"Foreigner!!" cracked me up.
There's an exception to the Jones act for foreign ships transporting American cargo if for a portion of the journey it is carried aboard a Canadian railroad (....for some reason...).
A seafood company was transporting Alaskan-caught fish to the US east coast. To step around the Act, they built a little railroad in Canada. maybe 200 feet long and maybe 10 miles East of the Maine border with New Brunswick. They unloaded the foreign shipped Alaskan fish into refrigerator trucks, drove the trucks up a ramp onto a flatcar, pulled the car 100 feet forward, pushed it 100 Feet back, drove the trucks back off the flatcar and crossed the border into Maine.
The Federal Government saw this for what it was and hauled them into court: after much litigation they put a stop to this silliness.
What did the seafood company do? Use American ships? No! They stopped buying American caught fish and instead shipped foreign caught fish on foreign flagged boats!
Problem Solved!!! (...????)
Alaska is also impacted greatly.
They should have something like this for Commercial Trucking!!!!!
Hm. Exception for areas outside the continental US? Maybe excluding Alaska? Or simply specific exceptions for Hawaii and Puerto Rico specifically? Or Hawaii and all non-state US territories?
Jones Act is not the cause of high prices in Porto Rice or Hawaii it has more to do with their location. Revision yes, repeal no, Jones Act is very important, would you like to see low paid international staff running New York Ferries? US Ship building is an important skill to maintain. Sure you can get a cheap ship made in Korea or China, US industrial capacity and domestic supply chains are more important in a modern world. for more information can be found on "What is Going on With Shipping?"
Cabotage sounds like a great board game.
Oh this is definitely a Ticket To Ride style hit.
Phil, you have the voice of B(o)atman and the look of Gordon!
I knew of the Jones Act cause my mom and I(for a bit) work in the cruise industry and there is a similar law I think that applies to passengers.
yes! i almost went into this because the stopovers are just so bizarre
Fun thx
If the Jones Act interests you then you should research the world's shortest railroad in Bayside NB which takes advantage of a loophole in the Jones Act.
he is still alive❤
He has a schedule for uploading videos, so idk why you’re surprised that he uploaded again 🙃
good info Phil thanks, I now have a better understanding of the Jones act
missed opertunity to put phil on a boat Lolol cant wait for a cruise investigation
1. I'm not American so just stating that
2. A bit surprised that this wasn't weakened during the NAFTA era - sure NAFTA is a multilateral trade agreement, but that opening of liberalisation historically seems like the window something like this could have been tackled - as was the practice in many other countries during peak WTO era.
3. As you state Phil, in today's political economy from a US and global point of view, the repeal and replace sounds like the best/most likely path to success. The 'Amended Jones Act' could (a) carve out exceptions for States *and* territories (I imagine this applies to Guam etc) for domestic shipping, but maybe it could be narrowed to a set of preferred nations & types of goods/imports that are permitted under said exception.
4. In the 'Amended Jones Act' it would appear to me that the language needs to be constrained to maritime *vessels* engaged in the transport of goods etc. thus excluding energy generation for separate legislation. But perhaps, this carve out may place a minimum quota of foreign and US parts for the turbines etc to be compliant if the more isolationist types don't move on this. Such a quota could appease domestic actors who wish to preserve a level of domestic beneficiation across the value-chain currently limited to US made, owned, manned constraints.
5. In short: this should have been tackled in the Inflation Reduction Act climate provisions, but it appears to be a 3rd rail so it would have probably failed. But the Dept of Energy ought to be a far bigger driver of reform if the Inflation Reduction Act & other renewable generation targets are to be met.
Ps: why on earth would someone dissent from your spiel? Until you say 'I'm no longer at Vox;' seems pretty necessary to me. Ignore the bozos.
A Democratic POTUS and Congress would need the backing of labour (unions and whichever bargaining structures you guys have) as well as civil society groups on the quota level. Without these structures, this would be open to a comms attack that the Dems are just Clinton style politicians in new suits. That line would be far more acerbic today than the 2000s bc as stated - nationalism/isolationism/protectionist leanings are pungent in 2023.
A Republican POTUS and/or Congress could only pull this off if it was post-Trump era. Far too many reps in Congress are elected on the protectionist platform and would be recalcitrant if such an action was proposed as R's are effectively still trying to reaffirm and establish 'for the working class' bona fides.
So ja, seems like this is likely a Dem action if any success is to be had.
How does this guy not have like 3 million followers
Great stuff Phil.
The most middle ground American thing to do would be to grant Jones act waivers for foreign flagged foreign owned vessels but charge them a port to port fee... and then set different fees per route or per mile.. or per ton per mile would probably be the most ludicrous...
What We need though is to somehow be able to competitively build ships to compete on the world stage against Dutch, Italian, Korean or Chinese... and as you state that is a hard question to answer.
The Jones act is horrible for Puerto Rico, everything must be shipped to Miami and then to San Juan making everything more expensive for literally no reason
I'm sure Puerto Rico's congressional representative can... oh, right. It's America's "stop calling it a colony!"
mentioned this in another comment, but i saw one particularly egregious defense of the jones act coming from jacksonville's congressman
@PhilEdwardsInc it's good just to raise awareness, on the Island people in the know have been up in arms over it for a long time...
You are wrong. There is a reason. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
@@rfarevaloIt's a very roundabout way. And a sort of stealth tax. Instead of spending a vast amount of money to maintain a military logistics network, the act sneakily raises the cost of shipping for all Americans in order to fund a civilian shipping fleet that would otherwise not be commercially viable, so that fleet may be repurposed for military support in times of crisis.
It seems like a workaround for some politicians who really did not want to be seen raising taxes, but were fine achieving the same effect by less direct means.
I love your Lego animation! It's so fun! ❤
Always love your personal interests being shared with all of us
Any form of economic protectionism costs American consumers. Tariffs are the best example.
So the purpose of the Jones Act is to preserve American shipping in case access to foreign shipping is lost in times of war, right? I think a good way to reduce its inflationary effects AND achieve the desired outcome is to open up the permissible nationalities of the crew, construction, and ownership to US allies in addition to merely the US. (We may also need some treaties with said allies to address what does happen if war breaks out, basically, trade arms or financial support for continued access to shipping.) Aside from that, we could also just get some federal funding to keep American shipping competitive.
Why not just sneak a new line into the Merchant Marine Act? "Provisions of the Jones Act do not apply to non-continental US territories or states".
Currently the issue is that the Jones act required the ship to be US built as well as manned, yes? Could it just be that the ship is flagged under the US and manned by the US? Just cut the boat-making part
preserving a minimum of native US ship building that can be converted to strategic military ship building is likely also a part of the consideration
I cannot wait to ask my friend, who's retired Coast Guard, what he thinks about the Jones Act Enforcer. He's probably gonna have some interesting thoughts on the topic.
The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
You know it's important when Phil records in his living room
The Korea checks are important!
Revise, find some middle ground on built in the USA vs components from abroad... exempt Hawaii and Puerto Rico.. but as a national security strategy we must fund and maintain some level of merchant marine in the usa
Arguably, one solution is to somehow bring back, in part, the boat building industry in America. I imagine the issue with the cost markup as noted in the clip you used is not just more expensive labor, but that all the rules around safety, and also sustainability, apply in the US. It's even possible that maybe some states won't let anyone build an oil tanker.
True. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
I’m boatman. I really enjoy your projects.
I think this policy is definitely about domestic sacrificing for defense. American flagged ships (and merchant marines) are crucial overseas logistics, at the tip of the spear, even with the impressive capabilities of AMC planes. However, think about the extra amounts of road and rail congestion, just because US isn’t using waterways as much! Great topic
You are 100% correct. Other ignorant people are commenting after learning about the Jones Act from a you tube video. The jones act means that in the event of war the USA has enough merchant marine ships under its flag to provide for logistics. Without the jones act, there would be far fewer US built, US owned, US regulated, and US operated commercial vessels.
@@rfarevalo Yeah, I think that the law originally did have an important industry protection element within the politics. But, it was not enough to prevent a loss of comparative advantage over the last hundred years, against strong international competition. Now, it’s definitely a National Security topic.