Would you argue the same way against a one-sided argument that slavery is bad?
Some things are one-sided for a reason: There isn't much to support the opposing side.
That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner. And what's worse is that it's not really money that we lose (we could always create more), but real-world value. We all collectively have far less as a result of protectionism, even though a select few might benefit from one piece of protection. Of course, they also lose to all the other forms of protectionism that apply to others. In the protectionism game, it's a dog-fight all the way down to zero.
Edit: And by the way, while the Jones Act was originally protectionism for the domestic shipping industry, which it immediately killed, now it is actually protection for the domestic TRUCKING industry. It would be much cheaper, with a much lower carbon footprint to ship things by boat up and down the coasts, or even from coast to coast sometimes, than trucking.
> That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
For the record, I support the Jones Act, and I'm just part of "society at large" and have nothing to do with shipping or logistics. Personally, I think it should be strengthened and made more strict to block some of the workarounds this article cites as reasons for its repeal.
I think that idea that the only people who support protectionism are those who personally gain from it is lazy and stupid. I'm really tired of that sort of thing in support of libertarianism.
> In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner.
Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
The only way libertarians can go on and on about many of these "inefficiencies" is because they're willfully blind to a lot of significant considerations, which they utterly ignore in their propaganda.
What if you want to buy the best ship? Not necessarily the cheapest, but the safest/biggest/most efficient? But you're forced by this law to only buy from one or two companies - they have little reason to compete on those elements.
It makes you wonder if it has actually had the opposite to desired effect and made the ship industry worse in the US. The top 5 shop building countries are South Korea, China, Japan, Italy and Germany. This looks like a game for wealthy nations. Other than China I would expect those places to be paying workers very well.
> Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
the problem is that laws like the Jones act are a bad form of protectionism. If the goal is to have more ships made in America, the government can always start building and selling ships (potentially at a loss if that's what is needed to make american shipping competitive). The problem with laws like the Jones act is that it solves one problem (American ships are expensive), but creates a worse one (American shipping is expensive).
Some things are one-sided for a reason: There isn't much to support the opposing side.
That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner. And what's worse is that it's not really money that we lose (we could always create more), but real-world value. We all collectively have far less as a result of protectionism, even though a select few might benefit from one piece of protection. Of course, they also lose to all the other forms of protectionism that apply to others. In the protectionism game, it's a dog-fight all the way down to zero.
Edit: And by the way, while the Jones Act was originally protectionism for the domestic shipping industry, which it immediately killed, now it is actually protection for the domestic TRUCKING industry. It would be much cheaper, with a much lower carbon footprint to ship things by boat up and down the coasts, or even from coast to coast sometimes, than trucking.