>>1981030Irrelevant. What matters to shippers and receivers is the time in transit, availability, reliability, and of course THEIR cost. If fuel efficiency was the sole determinant of the final price to shippers, everyone would be using pipelines and ships and no one would move cargo by air or trucks. Even when ships are cheaper, the time in transit may not be acceptable to the shipper/receiver and another option is used instead.
That's correct, but again, shippers having more options means exactly that, cheaper costs abroad. Apple for example does care about speed if they're launching a new product. They'll ship by Truck or Train because the product is expensive, small, and their need is for reliable delivery.
But many products, like toilet paper, can products, and other major bulk consumer goods don't need train speeds, they are perfect for ships, and they can carry a lot. It would mean more available trucks, and rail space and lower their costs as well, since bulk consumer goods are now being shipped.
Your analysis relies on treating every good as requiring fast logistics. Do you go to the post office and pay regular postage, or pay for the faster service? Well that's dependent on what you're sending.
>I said "in this case." I don't care about the Big 3, it's another scattershot argument. Most Americans don't know what the Jones Act is and don't care about it one way or the other.Went right over your head. If the Jones Act was passed in 2020 instead of 1920 Americans would quickly notice just how much economic opportunity cost are being incurred. The justification of an act is not by how engrained it is but whether it's effective or not. In this case, Section 27 of the Jones Act has lost it's initial purpose.
