Or rightly unpopular.
4 Likes
[quote=āJughead, post:77, topic:69975ā]
I see this fabled Jones Act is a matter of some concern for those commenting here and I canāt be bothered to research it but presume it is protectionism for well paid mariners judging by those who support it.[/quote]
Iāll just reiterate this for everyone here.
I donāt see said facts anywhere. Mostly ad-hominem and opinion in the absence of counterargument.
1 Like
It seems you canāt argue the facts and nor can you read.
Iāve concluded the Jones Act is protectionism for well paid mariners but not heard a single defence of it from you or anybody else against that accusation.
Iāve also concluded that Trump is going to be an excellent President and have no idea if heāll do anything about your precious Jones Act.
Iāve heard no argument against that either.
Iāve also concluded that your electoral system is a stinking cesspit of corruption (the same goes for your DoJ) that would shame a tin-pot dictator for its brazen disregard for established laws.
Iāve heard no argument against that.
So argue the facts ā¦ or even just your opinion.
I look forward to the debate.
1 Like
If trumps administration screwed things up Biden would have repealed most of it, but strangely not only kept most but doubled down on lots of it
1 Like
Are they all the neocons that are trying to keep the status and joining the swamp from both sides that will do anything to keep an outsider who is now very wise to how it all works, from being in control?
1 Like
I agree with you on almost all of that, @Jughead.
The Jones Act is protectionism, but it is also a matter of national security. One of which many of us are reaping the benefits of. Also, bold of you to assume that all American Mariners on this forum are union members.
I think we should get rid of the electoral college, but you sure as hell are going to piss off the conservatives with that take. If we had been going by popular vote only, Trump would never had been the 45th president.
Speaking of which, Iām confused about how you can be so blind to Trumpās obvious and brazen disregard for our laws. Have you listened to literally anything he has said or expressed interest in doing? I posted a few links earlier in this thread for your reference.
Your takes are warranted, but the landing is misplaced. We have many issues that need fixing in our country - the difference is that Trump is taking advantage of your ignorance on how our Govt, the Jones actā¦ Just about damn near everything, in order to get elected.
You would benefit from taking the time to learn about many of these topics, but again, itās the lack of being willing to do so, and blindly taking his words as fact, that makes you ripe for Trumpism.
1 Like
Interesting that you state that āAustraliaā has created the ridiculous situation that has destroyed our own shipping plus flagging the alleged ābastardry of the unionsā. Yetā¦ā¦in your second breathā¦ā¦.
ā Iāve concluded the Jones Act is protectionism for well paid mariners but not heard a single defence of it from you or anybody else against that accusation.ā
So the āAustralianā regulators are nincompoops for introducing single voyage permits followed by the Coastal Trading Act 2012 to allow foreign flagged tonnage to carry international, interstate and intrastate Australian cargoes which has indeed destroyed the Australian merchant fleet yetā¦.using your logicā¦ā¦the Jones Act is protecting highly paid US mariners and it should be abolished.
Are you confused?
2 Likes
The Heritage Foundation is a legit conservative think-tank, thereās literally no way this is a false flag operation from the left.
1 Like
Youāre delusional.
He did. He repealed most of Trumpās executive orders almost immediately.
2 Likes
like,
stop building the wall, - its still being built
let anyone in even from countries that say we cant vouch for the passport ( Obama also did nothing against State department advice as guess what it was a handful of muslim dominated countries)
stop deportations
Stop internal illegal immigration investigations - created sanctuary cities that are doing well with all the extra workersā¦lol
Yep great job, hows your list?
1 Like
Heās passed more legislation than any president since FDR, even with a Republican controlled house thatās obstructing as just as possible.
Hereās a short list thatās out of date:
1 Like
So, your logic is that protecting the US borders from foreign workers is good. But protecting US maritime jobs from foreign workers is bad?
Ok, Iāll debate you. Your logic is seriously flawed. By virtue of the fact that it makes no sense.
5 Likes
Biden has kept and renewed Trumpās Executive Orders 13818 and 13848 which everyone can find on The White House site.
Good. Iām glad. You can rightly justify the Jones Actās protectionism on national security grounds but itās a line that deserves debate when most here simply see it as featherbedding their own jobs thus increasing costs to commerce.
Then you misunderstand the purpose of the electoral college which is to ensure smaller states have a say in the running of the nation and are not simply swamped by large states eg California. Do you likewise want to get rid of equal numbers of senators from each state which is justified on the same basis? Saying Trump didnāt win a majority, whilst true, is irrelevant. So what? He won according to the rules.
Try me by citing an example please. Wide, general statements donāt cut it and bear in mind you may criticise Trump but compared to whom? Biden has broken laws eg southern border, unauthorised retention of highly classified documents insecurely.
I study American politics and corruption closely but from afar. You may be surprised to learn we all benefit from a strong, prosperous and moral USA and you donāt have it now and will lose it forever if you allow things to continue as they are. I donāt blindly follow anybody. I compare Trump to the other offering. Thatās the only comparison up for grabs. Weāve seen both presidents in office. Iām more than ripe for Trumpism.
No. Not really. Iām not advocating destroying the US maritime industry like we Australianās have done. Iām suggesting competition can be introduced to lower costs to commerce. It is not simply a case of all or nothing. As an example Iām aware that excess brick manufacturing capacity in WA could not be used to supply huge demand on our east coast because of transport costs by any means. Brickworks, the company involved found it cheaper to land bricks on the east coast from manufacture in Finland. Who benefits from that?
Aaaah. The wonders of amicable debate!
Yes, exactly. Feel the weight and note the multiple volumes of my expert report, dear citizen, Iām from the government and weāre here to help you. Look at all our shiny new laws.
Protecting US borders is a primary responsibility of any government. You can admit whomever you want, but the ones flooding your southern borders arenāt selected by your government so you have no idea if their work is needed. Biden certainly wants their votes and signs them up on the spot by issuing various permits. As for protecting US maritime jobs, I simply repeat. Let some competition apply a blowtorch to the system to reduce costs to commerce. Do you encourage the employment of illegal immigrants in the US maritime industry or simply palm them off onto less fortunately featherbedded industries? I await your debate.
We all understand that the Jones Act protects cargoes carried between US ports to only vessels which are built, operated and majority manned by US citizens or permanent residents. The primary issues with the Act are Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
Australia had similar legislation protecting inter port cargoes to Australian manned vessels. This was circumvented by Single Voyage Permits for foreign flagged and manned vessels followed by Continuous Voyage Permits followed by the Coastal Trading Act 2012. The foreign tonnage was subsidised and the crews enjoyed taxation concessions. Australian tonnage could not compete and we bowed to the global economy whilst compromising our sovereignty.
If you similarly modify the Jones Act legislation, in any way, they will go down the same road. The short sighted and greedy consumer will always chase the lowest common denominator.
The other question which arises from your post is ā¦ā¦why should Marinersā not be well paid and recompensed? The lifestyle deprivations certainly justify it on all counts.
During your professional life spent entirely in the Royal Australian Navy you effectively worked in a protectionist environment. Your security and work environment was not subject to globalisation pressures and you had the luxury of retiring at the young age of 55 on a lifetime guaranteed and not insignificant government pension. I retired at 65 with no pension and am self funded. Others must wait until they are 67.
Those in glass housesā¦ā¦ā¦
5 Likes
This argument only works if the government has consciously put a value on having an Australian shipping industry for either strategic or some other important value that overrides the cost savings of using foreign ships and crews. I welcome that debate.
Thatās capitalism for you. People will do what they perceive to be in their own interest ahead of any other even if itās a higher national interest. Thereās nothing inherently wrong with allowing other nations to supply goods and services, that being the basis of all trade. The law of comparative advantage can justify us abandoning an entire industry if it can be reliably purchased elsewhere so that we can concentrate on whatever industry brings higher profits.
Also bear in mind that our government can be a short sighted and greedy too. They say we can store our strategic stocks of fuel overseas. Work that one out for us. Or they want us to build nuclear submarines to (at least in part) shore up votes in South Australia (protectionism again) at massive cost above other options.
You could well ask why wagon wrights or saddlers should not be well paid. They should be paid what they are worth. The government should have little or no say in that agreement between worker and employer. Itās not the governmentās job to dictate pay and conditions but to create the environment where private companies can rise and fall on their own merits.
And properly so. You could advocate for system wherein competing, even foreign, companies rented out their navies to the highest bidder rather than buying our own and manning it with actual Australians. The British saved money by licensing privateers (for a cut) such as Sir Walter Raleigh to loot and plunder worldwide whilst spreading the munificence of proper, gentlemanly British values.
Navies are a monopsonies, with only one buyer. Donāt get me started on the money wasted buying naval capability whilst I felt whatever warship I served in lacked for weapons, sensors, speed, range, stealth whenever we exercised with our foreign friends. Thank goodness I didnāt have to fight a proper shooting war in any of my ships.
Sadly, retirement was compulsory then but I immediately started learning the merchant marine ways and still command a fun ship whenever they need me so Iām not fully retired yet.
Iām thankful for my pension, but bear in mind I paid for it by fortnightly percentage deductions from my pay which then simply disappeared into the ether in return for the promise of a pension. I even had to later pay deductions for my first year of service during which I received zero active pay but got a single dollar per week pocket money. My first pay rise after six months was 10 cents a week. 10% is pretty good donāt you think? I could reminisce about the fabulous buying power of that dollar - seven double ice creams and a large bottle of soft drink and a movie ticket left exactly zero change.
I hope your self funding is adequate. I wasnāt attracted to the navy by the pension - or the pocket money. I wanted to drive fast, powerful warships doing interesting things in lots of foreign ports. There was only one way to get there.
Cheers.
1 Like
Why should any of us care about increasing corporate profits, especially if itās done by compromising workerās jobs?
2 Likes
Because ācorporatesā provide goods and services for sale to, er, ā¦ workers. Oh, as well as those jobs that workers work in. They can only employ workers if they make enough money to pay them and make a profit.
And workers, being thick as bricks, stupidly want their goods and services much cheaper.
And also those idiot workers have superannuation invested for the most part in corporates so want them to be profitable and successful so their super grows.
Itās a virtuous circle.
You wonāt learn this at university. Six year olds running lemonade stands understand it immediately.