National Emergencies of Declining Companies

Letter to the Editor (4)

An old one that I found in my inbox from several months ago. Conflating the decline of any company, regardless of how large, with a “national emergency” might make for a good sound bite, but it reflects insufficient thinking. No company is “so large” or “so important” that it needs to be protected from the pressures and fears of failure.

Dear Editor:

Greg Ip writes that the decline of Boeing and Intel represents a “national emergency” (“Crises at Boeing and Intel Are a National Emergency, ”Capital Account, Oct. 21). This same line of reasoning was used in 1920 to pass the Jones Act, which prevents foreign ships from picking up US cargo in one US port and delivering it to another. By requiring the use of ships built, owned, and flagged in the US and crewed by US citizens, the intent was to protect the American shipbuilding industry so that in the event of war, the US would not be at a strategic disadvantage.

Unfortunately, it failed to do so. In 2022, over 100 years after the Act’s passage, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said, “we've essentially have [sic] given up on commercial shipbuilding.” A 2023 Congressional Research Service report details that the US has about five ships currently under construction compared to China’s 1,794. Further, the Jones Act has caused severe economic harm. By stifling competition, the cost of moving goods around the country is significantly higher, dramatically affecting consumers.

Given this history, how are we to believe that protecting Boeing and Intel, specifically, will be in the long run interests of America?

David Hebert, Senior Research Fellow, American Institute for Economic Research, Grand Rapids, MI

Emily Bissett, Senior, Aquinas College, Grand Rapids, MI