Thread by @cpgrabow

To the extent the Jones Act provides a national security benefit, it's the mariners from the 98 ship fleet that could be used to crew sealift ships in time of war.

Barring WWIII, the ships (77 of which are "militarily useful") themselves would mostly remain in domestic trade.

So how many mariners are we talking? 3,380 per this recent report: csbaonline.org/uploads/docume…

If the Jones Act imposes a billion dollars in costs annually, that's ~$295,000 per mariner. $5 billion in costs annually means nearly $1.5 million per mariner.

On a related note, recall that @JosephEStiglitz says a White House analysis placed the cost per job for the Jones Act at around $250,000: npr.org/transcripts/55…

This makes no sense. If we want mariners, subsidize them. The government could pay each U.S. flag carrier $100,000 for every American mariner they hire and come out way ahead from a cost-benefit perspective.

This isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff. The Maritime Security Program (maritime.dot.gov/national-secur…) is comprised of 60 U.S. ships (all non-JA foreign-built ships) that each receive an annual $5 million stipend. In exchange, the DoD can use these vessels during times of conflict.

So $300 million gets access to 60 ships and provides employment for mariners. In contrast, the Jones Act contributes few ships (low single digits) for all but absolute nightmare scenario conflicts and 3,400 mariners at a far higher cost.

Changing the current approach wouldn't just be wildly more efficient but also far more equitable. Under the current set-up, places like HI, AK & Puerto Rico (43% poverty rate) are bearing a hugely disproportional share of the burden of keeping JA ships operating. That's not fair.

If the Jones Act was really all about national security, a subsidy approach is the one that would be taken. We would assess needs and then pay for them.

National security is a fig leaf for what the law is really about: protectionism and keeping out competition.

#EndTheJonesAct