by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, QUICKLY NOTED
One of my favorite topics is the Jones Act, a little-known maritime law that has a big impact shipping goods. I have written extensively on it before, so I was delighted to see the Competitive Enterprise Institute publish a paper on the topic since the Jones Act has been in place for 100 years now. Below is the Executive Summary, and then a link to the full paper. It is a must-read for understanding why the Jones Act needs to be abolished.
“The Jones Act requires any ship traveling between two U.S. points to be U.S.-manufactured, -owned, -flagged, and -crewed. This heavy-handed protectionist measure was enacted in 1920 with the stated purpose of ensuring a strong merchant marine to support America’s commerce and the nation’s preparedness for war and national emergency. A century later, the evidence is clear: The law has not only failed to accomplish any of those objectives, it has systematically undermined each of them.
Today the Jones Act mostly covers well over 30,000 tugs and barges plying America’s inland waterways, and its punitive restrictions mainly benefit railways and trucking companies.1 As for America’s once mighty oceangoing merchant marine, the law has protected it to death: Less than 100 oceangoing vessels remain in the Jones Act fleet. As of 2019, the few American shipyards that can build commercial oceangoing vessels are being kept afloat by defense contracts.
The law’s supporters argue that because its costs are difficult to quantify, it is not clear that it costs anything. This is highly misleading. The law is designed precisely to restrict the supply of domestic shipping so that American domestic ship operators and shipbuilders can charge more. Shipping rates on Jones Act routes are typically several times more expensive than rates in the competitive international market, especially in terms of cost per nautical mile traveled for a standard container. The Jones Act’s proponents are fervent supporters of “buy American” but the law favors imports over domestic commerce. It is protectionism for foreigners.
The law has also failed its national security mission. The military utility of the Jones Act fleet has faded faster than the Jones Act fleet’s dwindling numbers. Modern warfare requires transport ships that are fast and flexible, while the global maritime industry is heading in the other direction, with transport ships that are increasingly slower, bigger, and less maneuverable. As for national emergencies, every time one requires sealift, the Jones Act needs to be waived so victims can get the relief they need from ships that are actually available.
According to one study, the Jones Act is equivalent to a 64.6 percent tariff on domestic seaborne trade. For Alaska, Hawaii, and especially Puerto Rico, the impact is particularly onerous. The impact of the Jones Act on American energy is also notable, and difficult to justify in today’s world of globally dominant North American oil production and falling prices.
While repeal of the Jones Act would be ideal, at a minimum, significant reforms are long overdue.”
You can read the full analysis here.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
It might not be so crazy after all for relatively young people who are going broke and having their lives torn out from under them to try to get back to normal in as careful a way as possible: going to gyms, salons, and other businesses. Might it be reasonable for some people to try it out to see if it can help with the infection rate? Can we trust people to be careful?
Some businesses such as FedEx, supermarkets, and medical practices are open and more are starting to or trying to open up, and yet they are not getting a lot of business because people are afraid, or told they need to be afraid. But why not open up and if people are willing to take the risk and practice social distancing and mask-wearing, we should let them.
The economy is horrific the way it is, and it just cannot remain like this. Many people’s lives are now devastated. For many, we have probably passed the point where the cure is worse than the disease.
We know by now that the virus does pose a risk of death, but we also know that in the vast majority of situations, the virus is more mild than it is lethal – especially for certain cohorts. People are well-educated enough to be able to make an informed decision as to what level of socializing they want to engage in for themselves. We should let them make that choice and start to get back to the business of doing business.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Daniel Henninger was spot on in his assessment of the Middlebury College in his article, “McCarthyism at Middlebury” in the Wall Street Journal. Students shockingly felt justified to attack Charles Murray, a conservative pundit, because he had a viewpoint that differed from their own. Henninger puts this incident into perspective; this display of recklessness might actually be a turning point in the madness that has infected liberals and college campuses under the guise of “correct speech.
We’ve seen this for several years now; in 2015, two Yale professors had to resign after encouraging adult students to stand up for the right to wear whatever Halloween costume he or she chose, even if it might offend another person; it was a response to a Yale policy trying to police Halloween costumes on campus. As Henninger pointed out in his article, “Numerous professors, including those at Yale’s top-rated law school, contacted [them] personally to say that it was too risky to speak their minds.” When even the faculty in higher education are afraid to speak their minds, we have a problem.
Even before that, in Spring 2013, a group of Swarthmore students outrageously violated the rights of the campus community. After being allowed to attend a board of trustees meeting to express their views, they then disrupted the meeting, preventing the duly elected Board from responding to their points and continuing the meeting. In their words, it was an effort “to smash ‘hegemonic power structures’ and silence other students”. Yet no action was taken against any of the students or faculty who participated in the abusive, illegal actions.
It is outrageous that the Middlebury incident occurred, but at this point, not entirely surprising anymore. What’s more, faculty and students at Middlebury participated in agitating the community before Charles Murray even arrived; they circulated a petition saying that Murray shouldn’t even be allowed to speak because his voice didn’t represent all people. In one sense, you can somewhat excuse the students who signed it, because they don’t always know better. But faculty? How can faculty at an institute of higher education believe and advocate that a different point of view is wrong in a college/university setting? What have we come to?
Middlebury can indeed serve as a turning point — but only if action is taken. These reckless participants need to be called out and reprimanded, or else such incidents will continue to occur.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
What happens when the government uses its power to give money from one group of people to another group of people? It’s happening. It’s not supposed to happen. See, in our Constitution, the government has the right do things — limited things — in order to safeguard the rights of the people. Our Constitution relates to individual rights; it’s not a document on democracy. Unfortunately, these lines are becoming more blurred all the time.
Maybe democracy as a system of government by itself cannot work; in other words, if a democracy allows two foxes and a chicken to vote on what to have for dinner, it reveals a fatal flaw — because it allows an unfortunate outcome. Of course the two foxes are going to vote on having the chicken for dinner!
At the same time, democracy is the only best form of government if the majority protects the rights of the minority, whether it’s racial, economic, or whatever — those rights must be protected. But this applies to all. In the same way, a democracy voting to allow the lower 51% to usurp the property of the upper 49% is just as intolerable as usurping rights based on gender, religion, or race.
You can elect a Chavez or a Castro in a duly elected election, but you can’t allow him to just use the fact that he got a majority of the people’s as an excuse to abuse a minority of the people. People just can’t vote to take all the money for themselves.
You could have a referendum on whether the richest people (making over $200,000/year) should give their money to those making under $200,000. You could vote that… but not really because people also have the right to their own property. What then? How do you resolve this kind of conflict?
There is no mandatory, compulsory requirement to vote. If our Founding Fathers want to put voting in the Constitution they could have, but they didn’t. On the other hand, our Constitution specifically does not allow our government to take money from somebody and give it to someone else. Our Constitution merely gives the Federal government enumerated powers, and it in no way allows us to take money from some people and give it to someone else that the government has deemed more worthy.
When Barack Obama stated for the first time that he would take money from one group and give it to another — when he announced he was going after millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share — it was the first time he verbally stated something unconstitutional.
In contrast, the states are allowed to make laws to do that — they don’t have Constitutions with enumerated powers as in the case of the federal Constitution.. States can legally, actually vote that more wealthy people must give money to less wealthy people. If and when that happens, people have the right to move within the United States to a different state with different laws — but yet still remain a US citizen. You can see the effect of this mentality even now, as high tax states have seen a population exodus to states that are less punitive.
So, what do when it is happening at the federal level? Vote for a new president? Perhaps that will change it. But how do we curb the effects of people receiving more and more wealth transfers and benefits? The unintended consequence of such policy is that the recipients will learn to always vote for the person that will create or continue policy that will benefit the voter in a tangible, direct, and economic way. As a result, the elections become less fair and based on being an informed citizen, and more on “How can I benefit? What’s in it for me?”
In this way, it logically follows that the argument could be made that you shouldn’t be able to vote if you have a conflict of interest. The suggestion of curtailing voting rights from those who are recipients of such egregious and unconstitutional policy is indeed drastic. But perhaps it should be a consideration for those who are too short-sided to see the long-term problems for this country — because the idea that our federal government can economically abuse a segment of the population for monetary gain is also radical.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
When President Obama took office in 2009, the United States ranked as the 6th best country in the world in terms of economic freedom. Now, in the last year of his term, the United States doesn’t even rank in the top ten anymore.
This year, the Index placed the United States as the 11th most economically free country. This is a significant loss. As noted by the Index, “Economic freedom is a crucial component of liberty. It empowers people to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to their personal choices.”
Five countries were ranked as “FREE”, meaning they scored 80-100% Those countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia.
Rounding out the top ten are: Canada (6), Chile (7), Ireland (8), Estonia (9), and the United Kingdom (10). With the United States ranking 11th, we have our worst score ever recorded. 8 of the last 9 years have seen losses of economic freedom; with this ranking, we have essentially lost a decade worth of economic prosperity progress.
“For much of human history, most individuals have lacked economic freedom and opportunity, condemning them to poverty and deprivation.
Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom.
The Index analyzes 186 countries. Economic freedom is based on 10 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:
1) Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);
2) Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending);
3) Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
4) Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).”
Only time will tell if we will regain our freedom or continue to lose it. Much depends on a new President and changes in Congress in 2016.
