Missing the point on the Jones Act

Editor's Note: Until this week, I can only fleetingly remember reading about Jones Law, and that means I'm probably as clueless about it as most of you.  But this week, I posted three pieces about it.  

One by  By Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel J. Ikenson, which was, "The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No LongerBear" .  This piece from the CATO Institute opposes it, along with one by one by Peter Zeihan, "Mexico: Triumph Over Geography", which discusses it, and got me started looking into this issue.

Then there was  this piece, What is the Jones Act? Separating Fact from Fiction. by Charlie Papavizas, Partner @ Winston Strawn LLP.  He and his groupt supports it. 

However, it seems to me this piece by Julio Rivera gives a broader picture of the concerns and values than the others.  It also leaves you with the question that we must answer, at least it does for me:  Isn’t there some things that should be protected against foreign influence, even if it’s not economically sound?  After all, how economically sound is it to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the military?  Some things are so vital it just can't be about economics.  Is this one of them?  RK

June 27, 2020 By Julio Rivera

Merchant Marine Act of 1920 or “Jones Act” as it is commonly referred to, turned 100 years old. For the last century, this important piece of legislation has ensured that at least one vital industry has not been exported in the name of nominal economic gains and wouldn’t contribute to the continuing marginalization of “America First” policy in the name of globalism -- shipbuilding.

Over the past several years, for one illogical reason or another, voices have sprung up from the proverbial “peanut gallery” calling for its repeal falsely in the name of the so-called “free market principles” that conservatives and libertarians like myself perpetually champion.

While some have made inconclusive points against the Jones Act regarding the economic impacts of its potential repeal, these arguments fail to acknowledge that the law is primarily intended to uphold national security interests and is not intended to help international fat cats eke out an extra percentage point or two in overall profit margins

While some have made inconclusive points against the Jones Act regarding the economic impacts of its potential repeal, these arguments fail to acknowledge that the law is primarily intended to uphold national security interests and is not intended to help international fat cats eke out an extra percentage point or two in overall profit margins............Read more