For several years now Cato Institute scholars have been highlighting the costs and shortcomings of the Jones Act, an oft‐overlooked protectionist law that restricts waterborne transportation within the United States to vessels that are U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built and mostly U.S.-owned and crewed. As widely reported on last week, our criticism has been regarded by some within the U.S. maritime industry perhaps jokingly, perhaps not as treasonous. Given this recent public attention, it’s worth quickly reviewing why we believe the Jones Act warrants intense criticism, regardless of what the law’s supporters might say or do in response:
by Captain John Konrad (gCaptain) Shots were fired this week when a newly released US Maritime Administration (MARAD) document from 2020 showed that a Department of Transportation (DOT) advisory committee.
When special interest groups want goodies from Congress, they’ll often cloak their pleas in the garb of “national security.” So nearly a century ago, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. And so it is today, as proponents of that law which costs the U.S. economy $200 million a year try to keep it in place. This protectionist measure, better known as the Jones Act, requires that all cargo shipped between U.S. ports be carried by U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-owned ships.
It played host to Hendrix and the Stones and was a haven for acid-house parties. After lying dormant for years, Manchester’s iconic concert hall is back