Informative podcast about the Jones Act. Since Shawn is based in Guam, thought it would be a good opportunity to do a 🧵 about the Jones Act's impact on the island.
Guam is the only 🇺🇸 territory in the Pacific subject to the Jones Act, with American Samoa and the Confederation of the Northern Mariana Islands both exempt. Wake, Midway, and Kingman Reef are subject to the JA but aren't territories (nor, I believe, have permanent residents).
Another thing to note is that Guam—along with Wake, Midway, and Kingman Reef—is not subject to the Jones Act's requirement that vessels be domestically built. But as @GuamPort points out in this 2018 document, it's not as beneficial as you might think: drive.google.com/file/d/1shrUbR…
In 1950 the Guam Organic Act was passed making Guam an unincorporated US territory. Per that Act, a commission was established to determine which federal laws should apply to Guam. Among those it recommended excluding: coastwise laws (i.e. the JA): drive.google.com/file/d/1rqzk2v…
The act also provided for the establishment of the Guam legislature, and it wasn't long before these elected representatives started noting the contribution of high shipping rates to the island's cost of living.
In 1963 the legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to exempt it from U.S. coastwise laws, thus making it eligible for subsidized U.S. shipping engaged in foreign trade: drive.google.com/file/d/1OSR-tT…
Of course, the law still persisted and in 1979 a United Nations mission to Guam released a report identifying the Jones Act as among those federal regulations that "have had a decisive impact on Guam". drive.google.com/file/d/1IRvwB0…
Also in 1979 @Interior's Director of the Office of Territorial Affairs sent a letter labeling the JA an economic hindrance to Guam and noting that, due to the law, "the transportation costs for US products are generally higher than the transportation costs for foreign products."
Two years later a report from Arthur Laffer (👀) entitled "Government Policies and Economic Growth in Guam" highlighted the Jones Act: drive.google.com/file/d/1leEmVb…
In 1995, the US Navy noted that the Hawaii and Guam trades were characterized by little competition and high freight rates. So high, in fact, that "Because of the high cost of transportation to Guam the Navy is considering shifting many personnel and operations to Japan."
A year later, the government of Guam noted a report finding that "average rates in the Guam trade are about $1,300-$1,500 per [forty foot container] higher than a reasonable cost standard would provide." Total estimated cost to the Guam economy was pegged at $40-$50 million/year.
The report added that this amount was "estimated to cost each family on Guam at least $1,139 a year."
The report also pointed out that "The Guam Trade is completely dominated by a duopoly" comprising Matson and Horizon Lines. In 2011 Horizon—under severe legal and financial duress—exited the trade, and it went from a duopoly to a monopoly.
It is amidst this background the Guam governor's Council of Economic Advisors announced a 2012 agenda that prominently featured seeking a Jones Act exemption: web.archive.org/web/2013101211…
Suffice to say, the exemption didn't happen. Fortunately, the monopoly didn't last as APL entered the trade using foreign-built ships. Matson has responded with legal action against APL: freightwaves.com/news/matson-to…
This more or less brings us to the current day. Of note, unlike other non-contiguous states and territories (@RepEdCase excepted) political leaders in Guam regularly criticize the JA. This, for example, is from @GuamCongressman last July:
This argument appears to rest on the fact that the JA inflicts disproportionate harm on Alaska and Hawaii. Which is 100% true. But harming those states and giving preference or advantage to ports in other states at the expense of AK/HI ports are not the same thing.
Resolution introduced in Alaska's state legislature last month: "BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Representatives urges the United States Congress to consider repealing the Jones Act." akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Det…
👏 👏 👏
Never forget that the Jones Act's primary purpose was to benefit shipping companies based in Seattle—home of Sen. Wesley Jones—by eliminating foreign competition for transporting goods to and from Alaska:
U.S.-built ships are extraordinarily expensive, with prices 4-5x higher than those found abroad for certain vessel types. But why? Here's a quick 🧵 on the reasons sometimes offered and the reality behind them.
One such reason/excuse is that U.S. shipyards are disadvantaged by comparatively stringent regulations related to health, safety, & the environment. But as @scottlincicome and I pointed out in a recent blog post, this holds little explanatory power. cato.org/blog/industria…
"Investing in new vessels is particularly challenging due to their *high capital costs*, short construction contracts, and difficulty in creating consistent pipelines of contracts."
Also note that offshore wind vessel services firm Eneti pulled out of a deal to build a JA-compliant wind turbine installation vessel last year due to high capital costs: shippingwatch.com/Offshore/artic…
Ruh-roh: "In the meantime, Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound communities will be mostly served by ships built in the 1970s...There’s no long range plan or state savings to replace the aging fleet."
Meanwhile, @BCFerries has added ten new ferries with capacities ranging from 399-600 passengers and crew since 2016. That Canada allows ferries to be purchased from overseas makes @bcferries' fleet modernization a significantly less costly proposition. remontowa-rsb.pl/en/aktualnosci…