By George Will
Sunday, April 07,
2019
The president has received from one of his employees,
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a report that probably tells Ross’s employer
what he wants to hear: that imports of cars — “The Audis are coming! The Audis
are coming!” — threaten “national security.” This report is required by our
lackadaisical Congress so it can pretend to be involved in setting trade
policy. After the president’s yes-man says “Yes” to the national-security
threat, the president can unilaterally raise taxes (i.e., tariffs, which are
paid by Americans) to slow the flow of cars to Americans who want them.
Using national security as an excuse for economic
foolishness, in the service of cupidity, is nothing new. What is novel nowadays
is a legislator standing athwart foolishness, yelling “Stop!” Although it is
impossible to imagine Senator Mike Lee yelling.
The Utah Republican, he of the white shirts, blue suits,
subdued ties, and measured words softly spoken in stately cadences, lacks the
demeanor of a brawler spoiling for a fight. He has, however, just picked one
concerning a small sliver of something vast — crony capitalism disguised as
patriotism.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, a.k.a. the Jones Act,
was passed after one war and supposedly in anticipation of others. Its
purported purpose was to encourage the development of a merchant marine
sufficient for war or other “national emergency.” Ninety-nine years later, the
nation is in a “national emergency” (presidential disappointment regarding his
wall); emergencies and national-security crises multiply as the ease of
declaring them increases. Never mind. The Jones Act has failed to achieve its
stated aims while inflicting substantial unanticipated costs, enriching a few
businesses and unions, and pleasing the 16 congressional committees and six
federal agencies that have oversight jurisdiction under the act.
Lee’s Open America’s Waters Act of 2019 would repeal the
Jones Act’s requirements that cargo transported by water between U.S. ports
must travel in ships that are U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-registered and
U.S.-crewed. Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel Ikenson of Washington’s Cato
Institute demonstrate that under — and largely because of — the Jones Act, the
following has happened:
One of the nation’s geographic advantages — tens of
thousands of miles of coastline and inland waterways — has been minimized by
making it off-limits to foreign competition in transportation. This increases
transportation costs, which ripple through the production process as a
significant portion of the costs of goods. Because of the Jones Act’s costly
mandates, less cargo is shipped by water, merchant mariners have fewer jobs,
and more cargo is carried by truck, rail, and air, which are more environmentally
damaging than water transportation. Two of America’s most congested highways,
I-95 and I-5, are along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, respectively. Yet the
amount of cargo shipped by water along the coasts and on the Great Lakes is
about half the volume of 1960. Since then, railroad freight volume has
increased about 50 percent, and volume by intercity trucks — responsible for 75
percent of federal highway-maintenance costs — has increased more than 200
percent.
A hog farmer in North Carolina purchases corn feed from
Canada rather than Iowa because delivery costs make the Iowa corn
uncompetitive. A Hawaiian rancher flies cattle to West Coast feedlots and
slaughterhouses to avoid Jones Act shipping costs. Although the United States
is the world’s second largest producer of rock salt, Maryland and Virginia buy
theirs for winter use from Chile because of Jones Act shipping costs.
As for military considerations: Troops get to today’s
wars by aircraft. And the antiquated maritime fleet carried just 6.3 percent of
the cargo in the 2002–03 buildup for the Iraq War.
The Jones Act illustrates how protectionism creates
dependent industries that then squander resources (ingenuity, money) on
manipulating the government. The act also illustrates the asymmetry that explains
much of what government does — the law of dispersed costs and concentrated
benefits. The act’s likely annual costs to the economy (tens of billions) are
too widely distributed to be much noticed; its benefits enrich a relative few,
who use their ill-gotten profits to finance the defense of the government’s
favoritism.
Spurious “national security” concerns tend to descend
into slapstick (“The Audis are coming!”) as with this hypothetical horrible
imagined by a U.S shipping executive defending the Jones Act: “I wouldn’t want
North Korea moving barges and tugboats up and down the Mississippi River. If
you don’t have this law, that could occur.” Huck’s raft crowded off the river
by Kim Jong-un’s vessels? Make your blood boil? Or your ribs ache from laughter?
No comments:
Post a Comment