48
Hong Kong billionaire to sell Panama Canal ports to US firm
headline is correct.
post title omitted a very crucial word.
Fixed
Uh-huh...
Hmm. I wonder if there might be a Jones Act repeal in the works? That would probably greatly increase the value of the Panama Canal, by making it more-viable for US East Coast-West Coast shipping.
kagis
Apparently there was some discussion of this, but Trump's apparently expressed support for the Jones Act, for whatever value that has.
https://gcaptain.com/trump-signals-jones-act-policy-will-stay-the-course/
The article continues: “The re-election of Trump signals a continued commitment to the Jones Act, supporting a uniquely American industry that spans jobs, innovation, and security. In choosing Trump, the American people voted for a leader who recognizes that policies like the Jones Act aren’t outdated relics but vital pillars of U.S. prosperity and safety. For American workers, communities reliant on the maritime industry, and anyone invested in a strong, secure America, this election outcome is a win—plain and simple.”
Isn't the Jones act so onerous that it basically had the opposite effect of killing the US shipping industry entirely? I think I read that somewhere a long time ago.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "the US shipping industry".
It benefits US shipmakers (eliminates competition), US seamen (eliminates competition), and industries that compete with shipping like freight trains (eliminates competition).
It disadvantages ports and American people/companies who want things shipped cost-effectively. It's bad for islands, like Hawaii, where it drives up prices.
I'd call "ports" some of the shipping industry, but also "shipmakers" and "seamen".
If the Jones Act were to go away, we would probably move a lot more goods by water than we do today.
Right, so while it does have its intended protectionist and national security benefits, it's at the cost of higher prices for everyone and thus a drag on the economy and subsidising the rail transport oligopoly.
Not sure how the Panama canal features into this tho, unless Trump follows through on annexing Panama, wouldn't it still be a foreign port for the purposes of the Jones act? And isn't that immaterial anyway when it's used as a transit point?
Not sure how the Panama canal features into this tho, unless Trump follows through on annexing Panama, wouldn’t it still be a foreign port for the purposes of the Jones act? And isn’t that immaterial anyway when it’s used as a transit point?
Transiting the Panama Canal doesn't count as moving goods to Panama.
The Jones Act makes it more expensive to move goods by ship between locations in the US. If it went away, we would move more goods by ship between the US East Coast and US West Coast. That would make the Panama Canal abruptly a lot more valuable.
EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. Maybe they didn't acquire any of the the infrastructure of the Canal itself, but just infrastructure for offloading stuff going to Panama, so ships transiting it wouldn't use what they acquired. I don't know that.
EDIT2: Yeah, looks like it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackrock-panama-canal-deal-ck-hutchison-trump/
In January, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, raised concerns that China could exploit or block passage through the canal and that the ports "give China ready observation posts" to take action. "This situation, I believe, posts acute risks for U.S. national security," Cruz said.
So he's raising the issue of China being near shipping moving through the Canal, not actually in its path. Probably right then.
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
48 points (100.0% liked)
News
36764 readers
460 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS