That is a really interesting topic, rather it so social or state regulation. I am writing about that topic for my thesis, but it is social regulation. Elders in Korea is overregulated and under regulated. This leads to suicide. Do this does not seem like overregulation it seems like protectionism that is so bad that it handicaps yourself and pushes people to seek alternatives rather than to go through the costs.

Interestingly poetic given the fragmented nature of a federal republic.

Schrodinger's regulation

overprotective against foreign threats and underprotected from themselves

In Spain we call It privatizing the benefits - socializing the losses

Man there isn’t enough people for the current ships 😂 fym

The issue is that China, Korea and Japan build 95% of the world's ships and China alone builds 47%. They are attempting to run China put of business. The EU builds barely very little.

@@wgowshipping The EU mostly focuses on cruise ships nowadays.

@@Croz89 and special ships like dredgers, dive support, offshore construction ships.

Because the only people who care enough to lobby politicians are the freight companies who benefit from it

If you think Jones Act has very small negative impact, you seriously need to study more

Today, most primary defenders of the Jones act are unions groups who work on constructing and operating those 100 ships...

I've always thought that the United States was captured by lobby groups, which is why it's much less efficient than other first world countries in areas like shipping, health, etc. Even things like copyright (the Mickey Mouse Life Extension Act), have been absurdly influenced by politicians who rely on the lobby groups for funding. The 'robber barons' of a century ago are now huge companies, but they still distort the economy in a similar way. The only way to fix it would to be properly restrict political donations as other first world, English speaking countries do (Australia, Britain, etc.). But we all know that the lobby groups are so powerful they would never allow that to happen.

​@@alexanderchenf1 - the impact is distributed across the population. On a per-person basis, it's very small compared to the impact it has on those working in the industry. Worse for the country as a whole, but better for a few.

@@UserNameAnonymous Merchants especially franchise merchants have national standard prices. They have to adjust their national standard prices across the board in order to compensate regional price hike due to truck transportation. If Jones Act is repealed, much of the truck transportation is replaced by much cheaper domestic maritime transport, then we can expect those national standard prices to drop substantially. For example, if a lock sold by Home Depot is $10 a piece nationwide, after the repeal, it could be lowered to $8 a piece.

Hello fellow John stossel viewer

@@ieaatclams I haven't watch John Stossel since the early 2000s when he was still on ABC and the hurricane I was referring to was very recent.

The problem with your example is that Puerto Rico neither had, nor has a problem with fuel at their ports. There was an issue getting that fuel into the interior of the country, but ships can't really help with that. This was especially true last Sept. when a BP chartered tanker was sent from Houston to Puerto Rico without the standard notification and knowing full well that this was a Jones Act trip. They then complained, very publicly, that the Jones Act was preventing them from delivering the fuel. What didn't make those "news" stories, was that a tanker loaded with fuel IN PUERTO RICO was departing to Jamaica (I think) to deliver fuel. Those two tankers passed each other. Although I like Stossel, that episode was just another in a recent spate of public anti-Jones Act propaganda directed by those that would see American ships, shipyards, and sailors be eliminated in the pursuit of greater profit. This would be at the cost of American security and jobs. Who benefits besides shipping companies? China for the most part. They are the largest shipbuilders in the world now and are taking marketshare from S. Korea and Japan. The US no longer even registers. So, the Jones Act needs updating no doubt. It is around 100yrs old, but removing it would leave the US very vulnerable and eliminate jobs and an industry at a time when US ships and sailors may well be needed as 'challenges' in the Pacific rise. Don't be fooled by corporate propaganda. And if you are actually interested in the shipping industry, the channel "What's Going On with Shipping" would be a better source.

it is estimated that the Act costs the average Puerto Rican family more than $1000 a year in added cost of living.

@@who2u333 who it benefits? Oh, I don’t know, maybe tons of US businesses that suddenly can much easier operate within their country, source and sell domestically? Just because US shop makers are bas at their business does not mean everyone else in the US has to suffer

As somebody from Hawai'i, this is a true statement. Honestly, just requiring the vessel to be owned, crewed, and flagged in America should be enough. And it would make Guam, Hawai'i, and Alaska major economic advantages for the US in transpacific trade that would greatly benefit their economies. Not to mention reducing costs of goods for the above and Puerto Rico.

@@TheCoyote808 No. You will have to allow foreign crews to some degree. You will also have to have a certain amount of ships built in the US.

@@zaco-km3su The need for American crews is not a significant hindrance because of the ratio of crew members to the amount of cargo. Think about how many containers you can pack onto a modern container ship. A giant container ship only needs a crew of a dozen or so people. Contrast that with how many truck drivers you would need to move those containers via highway. The cost of American crews adds mere pennies per ton of cargo per day. The inherent cost efficiency of water-based transport vs land-based transport swamps out the effect of those more expensive crews. The Jones Act’s real hurdle is the need for American-built vessels.

As a fellow Alaskan.. sup from the Mat-Su Valley :D

As a fisherman in Bristol Bay, AK it is crazy to see our salmon headed and gutted, shipped to china, filleted, and then shipped back to the US. along the way tons of Russian fish are mixed into the stock, the fillet quality is denigrated, and tons of time on a perishable product is added since it's so hard to ship it directly to Seattle

Feel like a lot of the pushback may come from trucking companies or the auto industry in general who would see their sales and profits go down when more products get shipped instead of driven

The main argument and reason the Jones act was written was to protect US security. The economy wasn't really in mind, and at the time - WW1 - you had a consistent issue of foreign powers coming to American shores arbitrarily, notably Germans.

"protectionism gone wrong" implies that protectionism can ever go right, which it can't

​@@dirtcrazykid9674It can. Japanese protectionism allowed their early factories and machine founderies to face less competition while they learned and grew from local profits. Untill they could focus on exports abroad while facing almost no challenge at home. It very much is the cause why japan could grow its famous brands.

@@dirtcrazykid9674 well never say never, if Taiwan didn’t protect its industries then China could’ve infiltrated it without a shot fired. Complete non-protectionism works only in a world with absolute security.

you ship goods from India to America? Can yoy tell me more about your job plz (bcz I am intrested in learning about jobs so that I can choose one and go in that field)

@@weirdoze Just look up jobs in the merchant navy.

@@ArawnOfAnnwn I think he works in commercial shipping not in merchant Navy.

@@weirdoze Merchant Navy is the fancy title for commercial shipping, like a janitor nowadays is a "Sanitation Engineer".

@@rednecktek2873 you are goddamm right

You have cows on the island to supply beef. Funny, the video producer somehow thought they ship that beef to the mainland.

At that point it becomes cheaper just to import from outside the US

I would have thought an indigenous Hawaiian would be of the ilk, buy Hawaiian. I am not Hawaiian, yet I think given the opportunity you should push the Americans back into the ocean and free Mauna Kea back to Pele. Maybe not so indigenous, but more American than Hawaiian.

@@couttswso quit the white savior shit ya bum. He’s complaining about a current issue, not a long-term one. And Hawaii couldn’t sustain itself economically without the massive amount of American investment and tourism, just look at the rest of the pacific islands. You’ll see the only ones that aren’t dirt poor are colonies.

​@@nobodyspecial4702bruh

Suspending an Act of Congress for an emergency is within reason. Failing to allow the emergency to end, and thereby unilaterally undoing an Act of Congress without a countermanding Act, or Judicial Review declaring the Act illegal, is how you get dictators.

The PR thing was BS. I was there on a jones act vessel. My company increased the amount of vessels going there. I also saw a ton of non american ships there

Oh shit I guess that's when most of us learned about it

yes im from germany an there is the same problem, lobbying is just a other word for corurption

It happens everywhere. You’re absolutely right.

Lobbying is basically legal bribery. A company can basically pay a senator to write a law for them. It completely goes against the concept of "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". Of course lawmakers are never gonna remove a law that lines up their pockets, so lobbying will stay legal forever.

Call it what it is - bribery.

By rights, it should be actively outlawed. But messing about with democracy is embedded in murica. Look at today -2023 - communism just around the corner.

The problem is they didn’t want to pay! There are lots of tugs and barges to move cargo like salt up and down the east coast. There is someone in every harbor on the east coast that would have taken the job. But we have to get paid a decent wage for this kind of work it’s hard, dangerous, and skilled work. Whoever was trying to move the salt was trying to screw us American merchant mariners out of work and had foreign ships bring salt from overseas to screw a fellow American. Next time you buy a car or any other product think of this! Or maybe you don’t care (that is until you are out of work because your profession gets offshored). Ever time you purchase a foreign product or hire a foreign service your putting a fellow American out of business and costing people jobs. We’re not talking about a minimum wage job either but a good paying middle class job!

We can’t even get some legislators on board with regular wind turbines, the GOP screamed for years how turbine are murdering Billions of birds a year. America is in an alternate reality.

Good. Wind energy is such a farce it's not even funny. Those giant ugly wind turbines don't work for crap, break easily, and are currently unrecyclable! Why not use better methods? Wind doesn't work.

@@jabzilla21 The bullshit you write sadly can't be used to produce methane.

​@@jabzilla21 What on earth are you on about? If they don't work, where did the UK get 26.8% of it's electricity from last year? Why is it the cheapest form of electricity generation? Why is the world building it like crazy? And which infinitely recyclable alternative are you about to suggest? Solar? Nuclear? Or are you a fossil fuel brain who suddenly cares about recycling?

Couldn’t USN Seabees also assist in the construction and use their own ships?

I didn't know this either, but then again, I'm not too surprised

That’s incredibly sad

US also consumes same proportion of oil and other stuff. Just means the average American can afford way more than any other citizen.

Well every country outside India is going to eat more that their percapita of beef because Hindus don’t eat beef

It also represents the unhealthy food culture of America. This explains why half the country is obese.

The Jones Act should be repealed by Congress to encourage ships built in America. All luxury ships fly a foreign flag but indirectly own by American investors.

May I suggest this as a counter point. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/cWSIrKGug4B-0J8.html

The issue was the internal distribution of fuel in PR and not the Jones Act. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/iJ19paqckKyapWQ.html

Exactly, can also see it for IBM pushing for massive regulation of AI - easy for them to since it will mean they have less competition

There is a similar problem in Turkey. There was even a Turkish politician naming cabotage "sabotage" 😃

Thats mostly because of depth of water and capacity to take bigger ships

give sabah and sarawak to indonesia. problem solved.

@@rizkyadiyanto7922 make it independent

People who complain about the Jones Act ignore that without it there would be no shipyards left in the US. San Diego is the home port for the US Pacific fleet and all their service is done there in the GD NASSCO shipyard. Remove the Jones Act, that shipyard closes and then the navy has no repair facilities on the entire west coast.

@@nobodyspecial4702 that means either the navy should buy out the ship yard or that shipyard deserve to be closed, don’t we live in a free market society? hypothetically speaking, removing the jones act could create more ship yards and more American manufacturing job we have been losing since 2000s. Better ship building and make American supply chain stronger.

@@kevinw4267 The Navy isn't in the business of building ships, it's only in operating them. The Jones Act doesn't prevent new shipyards from opening, it actually keeps the ones that exist today from closing because it gives them a reason to exist. No Jones Act, no ships built in the US. It's really that simple. The US can not compete with Asian shipyards on an economic level so removing the act would mean there is no reason to produce ships in the US anymore.

@@nobodyspecial4702 how about Italian? They also build ally ships. Economy of scale is a thing, you know? So what, we just abandon millions of Americans, let them get drugged up and commit crimes?

@@nobodyspecial4702 perhaps the navy should become more involved in the business of building ships.

How so, if you don't mind me asking?

@@utuberme1 it's likely referrin to natural gas prices. Is forced to buy more expensive LNG from abroad rather than from the Gulf Coast or something.

@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 No. There are natural gas pipelines extending from Texas to New England. There's no reason to use freighters to move it.

@@nobodyspecial4702 Heartland institute also wrote this in 2018 (not the most savory people imo, but this doesn't seem egregiously wrong): "Utilities used Russian gas instead of cheaper, domestically produced natural gas because state governments in the Northeast have blocked various efforts to expand natural gas pipelines in the region, and federal rules, primarily the Jones Act, make transporting domestic American commodities and energy on ships more difficult and expensive."

​@@nobodyspecial4702 "No. There are natural gas pipelines extending from Texas to New England. There's no reason to use freighters to move it." The existing natural gas pipelines can not meet New England winter demand. Environmental groups are actively block any expansion to the pipelines.

If a ship is built foreign then purchased and operated by a US company it can very easily get a waiver to bypass the Built In clause. It's a boiler plate form.

the problem is literally the opposite. Who in his right mind would go to work for 40-50k per year away from home enclosed in a vessel in the middle of the ocean 24/7. Get real. In the meantime imagine how many chinese goods were bought instead of US goods in the USA simply because of shipping costs.

Requiring only americans to work on these ships doesn't make it any better and "ownership" is mentioned in the video as sliding scale. If you wanna keep regulations on the shipping industry, which don't already exist for trucking and rail, then it requires a much deeper look.

Can't wait until the next loophole pops up. It's better to repeal the whole damn act. At least, Section 27, since that is the part that started all of this.

they still have a problem to staff them, we don't have enough trained seamen

@@kingace6186 repeal the act and the us shipping industry plummets even more with thousands losing jobs and shipyards

The problem is whoever congress member that propose this gonna be called unpatriotic by the opposing party.

republicans control the states of the Mississippi River system, which would benefit the most, and have for a long time. if they didn't want to keep it like this, they'd kill it. so much for deregulation.

@@BayuAH Just need two from opposing sides to do it together.

It's a loss for sure, for the american consumer. But the money is not lost; it is going somewhere. The Jones act is a huge boon for the entire industries of air, rail, and road cargo transportation, who are the beneficiaries of this policy because they pick up the business that would otherwise have gone to domestic water transport and charge more because it is more expensive and because there is one less option. And those industries lobby members of congress and have them on the payroll to make sure the Jones act remains in place. It's not the members of congress who you must look to change this, because they and the practice of lobbying are the most critical part of the problem to begin with.

I don't imagine it would do much good for Congress to see this video, as if we could then expect them to act. They won't act so long as the public does not pressure them to act, and the public can only pressure them to act based on their own understanding of the issue. For that reason, I think what would be far more important than Congress seeing this video would be everyone else seeing it.

And yet they fail to understand it. It's not about giving preference to US businessmen or protecting jobs. Today, it is in place purely to ensure that there are ships flagged in the US, owned by US corporations and crewed by US citizens so that the government can call them to serve in times of need. Without the Jones Act, there would be no US merchant marine vessels that do anything other than catch crabs in Alaska.

I was wondering the same thing!

as long as your stell superstructure is less the 1.5% foreign

The factor you're missing is labor union influence/special interests/corruption.

@@IndependenceCityMotoring better than some pockets of rich people shooting their own feet as well as everybody else

@@imsohandsome #whataboutism ...two wrongs dont make a right.

Having merchant ships flagged and operated by US carriers helps TREMENDOUSLY in a time of war, humanitarian crises and Or evacuation. Our merchant fleet is small compared to our navy and size of our country. This law helps keep at least some shipyards in business and a reserve fleet of vessels that help sealift etc in time of war. The law needs updating but it’s core values I agree with. Hope this helps a little.

@@seanpruitt6801 ironically, protectionism lowers production as there's no reason to innovate. If we want more ships, make them compete, don't coddle them.

Which would be a much, much better way of regulating the shipping industry than the current Jones Act.

The only thing that is somewhat uncommon about the US’ regulation of passenger flights is that a foreign airline can’t fly a passenger between two US airports connecting in a foreign country. So, you can’t book and JAL or ANA flight from Guam to the mainland via Tokyo. To be fair, there aren’t many other examples where the law is relevant. Outside of the European common aviation market, almost no countries allow domestic flights to be flown by foreign carriers.

@@andrewlechner6343 Right, at least our airlines could still buy and fly an EU-built Airbus.

​@@doujinflip airbus has factories in US

Complaints about it are almost entirely done by people lacking the intelligence to understand what they are complaining about. The Jones Act exists today for one reason, to ensure that there are US flagged and owned ships because the US Navy does not have sufficient transport capabilities to support a large scale military action. They call up the merchant marine to provide the necessary shipping in war time.

​@@nobodyspecial4702 Support for it is often almost entirely people lacking intelligence on the economic impact it has and that there are other options that could address these concerns...such as those discussed in the video.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Considering how much of what he claims in the video is unsupported opinion, like claiming that the Jones Act is why ships are NOT being built in the US why would anyone bother watching the whole thing. Ships wouldn't be built in the US at all if there as no Jones Act because there would be no reason not to purchase a Korean made ship that costs a fraction of the price. There's no "competitive" market in US shipyards because there is no way to compete against Asian shipyards and only one significant commercial shipyard left. Eliminating the Jones Act won't suddenly change world economics and make US ships cheaper to produce, it would only ensure that no more commercial ships at all would be built in the US. He might make some valid points towards the end but the lack of validity from the onset doesn't make it worth wasting 20 minutes of my life. There are far more intelligent and accurate ones regarding the Jones Act than this.

@@nobodyspecial4702 By denying American businesses access to the best shipping options, the Jones Act boosts transportation costs. Shipping oil from Texas to the Northeast costs three times more than shipping oil from Africa to the Northeast, an extra cost paid by U.S. consumers. For every $1 gained by U.S. sailors, shipbuilders and carriers as a result of the act, U.S. consumers lose more than $1, resulting in a net loss. The Jones Act is also bad for the environment. More expensive U.S. vessels mean the U.S. shipping industry has fallen behind in terms of innovation: Companies hang onto older, less fuel-efficient and more dangerous ships rather than updating or retiring them. Older fleets mean more pollution and energy use. High waterborne transportation costs also divert freight from ships to trucks and trains, which are more polluting too.

@@nobodyspecial4702 Two studies have confirmed what observers of the Jones Act have known for years - that the century-old federal maritime law has long been harmful to Puerto Rico’s economy. One of the studies, conducted by John Dunham & Associates, found that the Jones Act has prevented the creation of 13,250 jobs and $1.5 billion in annual economic growth, representing $1.1 billion in higher prices, $337.3 million in wages, and $106.4 million in lost tax revenues. The other, conducted by Advantage Business Consulting, looked specifically at U.S. territory’s food industry and estimated that the Jones Act equaled a 7.2 percent tax on food and beverages alone, or about $367 million extra for island residents. “Individually, families pay $300 more or $107 per person for food and beverages,” said ABC economist Vicente Feliciano.

this is not true. If you use google first 15 results will be wrong but the fact is that US produce 12 million barrels a day and consume 20.

@@steffengustavsen9678add in that a decent amount of imports come from canada(and due to our monopoly position we get very fair rates) then you can lower that number even more. Idk. Small contention

Peter Zeihan is an American chauvinist though. His understanding of the rest of the world is rather limited.

I realised that it takes roughly a scoop of ice cream to get from the trainstation to home (purchased close to the trainstation)

Looks like you need Freedom!

@@heidirabenau511 those Are m aoil fields are crying out for democracy, light beer

The sentence in the video you're quoting immediately proceeds to suggest the exact opposite. Like c'mon.

@@SacredDaturana ...it was literally a joke? Like c'mon.🤦🏻‍♂️

@@dancoroian1 Well yeah, I'm saying it was a bad one.

Brick Immortar had a great video on it. Highly recommend it.

@@KellAnderson bingo, I couldn't remember the channel name thanks

The rancher will still need to register the ship to a country. Therefore the law still applies.

The problem is that ocean shipping needs giant ships to be economical. A sailboat with a few cows on it would be dramatically more expensive per cow than even going through the roundabout Hawaii to Vancouver maneuver from the video. From a quick googling, a panamax ship costs over $100 million and costs $9 million per year to operate.

@@haxney You wouldn't need a Panamax ship for this but it would still be ineffizient

Some of his previous China videos made me suspect so haha

china builds roughly 45% of the world's tonnage, an japan and south korea build another 35-40%.

There is an economy of scale that offsets the costs. Korean shipyards are absolutely massive compared to the rest of the world. The commercial shipyard in the US can handle 5 hulls at a time in various states of completion with only 1 drydock and 1 floating drydock for ship maintenance with a water frontage of a couple hundred meters. Ulsan in Korea has 10 large size drydocks spread over 4 kilometers of frontage.

By EU companies perhaps, but in South Korea.

Then it would make sense to stock up now, yes? Especially since we are obligated to come to their defense if the third country gets a little frisky.

There's ONE cruise ship that's compliant with the Jones Act - Spirit of America IIRC, that's able to do a Hawaii cruise. It was built to serve a need, because there are no foreign countries anywhere close that can be sailed to by a foreign flagged and crewed vessel. All those Alaska cruises that start in Washington or California and visit Alaska MUST have a stop in Canada included, otherwise, it would be subject to Jones Act restrictions.

Cruise ships fall under the Passenger Vessel Service Act of 1886 and not the Jones Act.

@@wgowshipping Which passes on the fee to the passengers, so it's not really impacting the cruise ship industry.

Part of the Jones act is ensuring there's a merchant marine during war. American built is the only way to guarantee we can replace sunk ships. American flagged is the only way the government can seize boats for the war.

There are international safety standards to which all ships are built by. Safety isn’t an issue. The issue with repeating the Jones act which is not mentioned in the video is the complete loss of American seamen. The Jones Act guarantees a well trained industry of American seamen. Without the Jones act all Americans are replaced with cheap foreign workers. Massive national defense and moral issue.

@@milojones9241 winch i said to remove the flagg and the built clauses but keeping the American crew clause.

Competition breeds innovation. Time to innovate.

@@thee-sportspantheon330 hard to innovate when you're being replaced by extremely cheap labor which is typically slave labor.

Ignores all the actual reasons the Jones Act has never been repealed. The only reason it exists today is to ensure that there are ships owned, flagged and operated by the US so that the government can call them up if needed. Without the Jones Act, there would literally be no US flagged ships that do anything besides catch crabs in Alaska.

@@saiv46 like which ones?

Nah man u need to protect American shipyards once they are gone they are hard to restaff and build infustructure.

Better Call Sal! 😂

@whatisgoingonwithshipping Sal straighten this guy out!

This, all day. Sal is great with this stuff and his show is a watch as it drops for me. He's a pro.

started following him on twitter - the only criticism is that his content is a bit too thicc 😂 It's fine for a mega enthusiast/someone intimately working with shipping but otherwise I couldn't recommend or share such content

He is often great but myopic on the Jones Act.

@@haakenhaakensen1569 Sounds like a realistic take if he's myopic on something. People should myopic on most things relating to government.

Read what you wrote and seriously think about it. The only reason ANY shipyards remain in the US today is entirely due to the Jones Act.

I think they did in an episode on Puerto Rico

There have also been temporary exemptions to the Jones Act to accommodate unique situations of State government. For example, The State of Alaska needed to increase mainline ferry capacity to meet demand for sailings between Seattle and SE Alaska. With the time required to design and build a new ship of at least 4 or more years, the State of Alaska obtained a temporary exemption to the Jones Act so that a suitable surplus ship could be purchased from a European ferry operator. This ship was the Stena Britannica, purchased from Stena Lines. The ship was renamed as MV Wickersham, and was a top quality, fast and luxuriously fitted car ferry with an ocean rated hull design including stabilizers. When the new US built MV Columbia was ready for operation, the Wickersham was sold to a car ferry operation in the Mediterranean.

None as far as I can tell, as it seems it is located in the area of steppe like grasslands inbetween the wet northeast and arid south west of the big island.

There are international safety standards to which all ships are built by. Safety isn’t an issue. Plus they can just replace the jones act with an clause mandating that any ship in domestic shipping should require an "American Safety Certificate" issued by coast guard.

Americans don't magically build better ships.

@@fallout560 No, but they do build ones that are flagged in the US with US crews and can be called upon by the US government in times of need. The same can not be said of a ship build by Koreans, owned by the Japanese and crewed by Philipinos. That's the real reason the Jones Act still exists. It's to ensure that the US can call upon ships if needed. Eliminating the Jones Act would eliminate the US merchant marine since it's not exactly busting any records with it's international shipping of absolutely nothing.

@@nobodyspecial4702 the issue is the Jones act makes them uncompetitive to build. If the US wants a shipbuilding industry, you can't do the Jones act. You have to subsidize and build an international competitive national champion

well, after shipping to Vancouver, surely they'd become Air Beef

@@1224chrisng Air beef. That's what I used to call flatus.

Keep the american owned part for security, just require ships be built to US standards for safety, and throw some taxes in for good measure to encourage but not require the other stuff. Problem mostly solved.

@@kingofhearts3185 The need for highly skilled, educated and experienced US merchant seafarers is as important as US shipyards, if not more so.

It's ignorance, not intelligence behind this video. The reason the Jones Act still exists is because a US flagged ship, crewed by a US merchant marine crew can be called up as an auxiliary supply ship for the US in a time of war. The US navy does not have enough transports to support a large scale military operation anywhere in the world which is why the US needs to have US owned and flagged merchant ships and the only reason we have any is because of the Act.

Idk if a fruitless attempt to bring awareness to flawed legislation against the interests of lobbyists meets the "great" requirement...

@@ASLUHLUHCE Do tell, what lobbyist interest acts to support this? The pitiful shipyard workers union with barely a couple hundred members? Or would it be the leading US commercial shipyard in San Diego finally starting out their first new commercial construction in 6 years? Neither of which come across as powerful lobbying groups.

@@nobodyspecial4702 Watch the video

@@steffengustavsen9678 Right, because the world's political leaders are so stable and well meaning. You are so naive it's laughable.