The Trump administration recently announced a plan for steep port fees on Chinese-built vessels, which dominate global trade and are frequently in San Diego Bay.
The idea is to limit China’s dominance in the seas by making it more expensive to use their vessels and, in theory, push the nation’s importers into the arms of the comparatively small U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The new Chinese levies, which wouldn’t take effect until mid-October, could cost an importer roughly $150 a car, according to estimates from the Port of San Diego. There is concern from the shipping industry that the levies, on top of tariffs, could significantly impact global trade.
U.S. shipbuilding is practically nonexistent compared to China and others. Critics argue there is no way (at the moment) for the U.S. to catch up and the whole plan will just mean increased costs for consumers. President Donald Trump has argued it is vital for national security that America builds up its shipbuilding industry.
Question: Is the Chinese-built vessel levy proposal a good one?
Economists
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
NO: It will act as yet another tax on the U.S. consumer without spurring investment in shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is a huge, complex endeavor and expanding capacity would take many years. Trump’s record of on-again, off-again tariffs means that this policy is unlikely to promote any new investment, since the levy could be gone tomorrow. Moreover, China would likely retaliate with a tax on U.S.-built aircraft, hurting the U.S. aerospace industry and its workers.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The U.S. cannot quickly create the capacity to produce ships at a volume sufficient to replace Chinese-built vessels that are now docking at U.S. ports. A levy imposed now would drive up transportation costs that will be passed onto consumers. Policies to incentivize capital investment in the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and grow the workforce, should be emphasized in the near term. The levies should be delayed until the restoration of the industry is underway.
Ray Major, economist
YES: The vessel levy is another tool in the tool box that the U.S. can use to encourage China and other countries to adopt a more fair trade policy. They can easily be removed when a trade deal is in place. The levy amounts to 0.00375% of the value of a $40,000 car.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: Attempts at micromanaging the economy are unproductive and detrimental. Top-down manipulation of shipping production will cause unintended consequences and dysfunction. Imposing complicated rules and tariffs for shipping goods and services makes trade more expensive and lessens productivity of all. Voluntary exchanges of “free trade” benefit all participants and facilitate the specialization and division of labor. Economic development is not zero-sum where one gains at the expense of others losing. Put “free” back into free trade.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
NO: The economic infrastructure is not here for more shipbuilding in the U.S. One problem is that not enough steel is produced in this country. Another is that labor is more expensive here, and there is less desire to work in manufacturing. Those situations could improve in the future, but it would take a long time, and the U.S. is not likely to approach China’s shipbuilding capacity. In the meantime, consumers will be hurt as prices for products carried by Chinese ships will increase.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
NO: It would be hard to find a business or consumer in America who would not be affected through the goods they try to produce, buy or sell by this policy. Any effects on U.S. shipbuilding would be years down the road. And the very long-term investments that are required to build more ships are difficult to influence with policies that come out of nowhere and may have changed by the time these words hit print.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
YES: Nothing says “free market economy” like a special fee slapped on vessels built somewhere else. It’s a genius idea. Why compete by building better and bigger ships or planning ahead? Who needs cheaper shipping and global trade stability anyway? After all the tariffs, consumers and businesses will barely notice the extra costs. Of course, I’m sure China will just graciously accept the new levy with no retaliatory measures that could hurt the U.S. exporters. (Sarcasm noted).
Executives
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: All tariffs and “port fees” will clearly increase the cost of goods for Americans. Both new expenses will be passed on directly to consumers. The U.S. shipbuilding industry is so expensive compared to the rest of the world due to very high wages compared to wages paid in other countries for equal skills. That spread in wages may be acceptable to Americans to encourage well paid jobs, but consumers need to know why certain industries in the U.S. cannot compete with other countries on price.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: I am sympathetic to measures that are designed to reduce Chinese dominance across broad sectors. However, the more realistic approach would be policies that incentivize shipbuilding elsewhere across the globe. This is not different than the other tariff-led domestic manufacturing goals. The economics of manufacturing mostly don’t work here, primarily due to the cost (and shortage) of labor. Why don’t we spread more business to other nations rather than indiscriminately slap everyone with tariffs?
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: A levy on Chinese-built vessels will raise costs for U.S. importers and consumers without offering any strategic benefit. China dominates shipbuilding due to infrastructure that our domestic producers abandoned decades ago. Rebuilding a competitive ship industry would take years, require major government subsidies and yield higher-cost products. Punitive fees will not change these fundamentals, they will further disrupt trade and shift demand to other low-cost countries, not revive U.S. shipbuilding.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
YES: If it’s being used as a negotiation tactic in the trade war. If not, while national security, stability, and local shipbuilding growth are important, adding levies to tariffs this year may not be wise. A measured approach is needed — too much too soon risks U.S. supply chain disruptions, higher costs, job losses, and higher prices. Rebuilding U.S. shipbuilding requires significant time and investment. Implemented too soon, new levies could do more harm than good without strong domestic infrastructure.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: Like many of President Trump’s ideas, it could be very good as a long-term strategy, but not good as a short-term economic decision. It would take many years to build up our own ship construction capabilities and in the meantime, prices consumers pay now will be increased. Let’s develop a long-term strategic plan, not a short-term reaction that will not benefit the average person or business.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
YES: The levy aims to revive U.S. merchant shipbuilding, which has declined in recent decades. With China controlling more than 50% of global shipbuilding, the policy could encourage diversification and counter market abuses. While industry stakeholders worry about costs and trade disruptions, fees apply only to Chinese-linked or Chinese-built vessels. The long-term impact remains uncertain, but the policy signals a strategic shift toward reducing reliance on Chinese-built ships.
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Is the Trump administration’s plan to tax all Chinese-built ships a good idea? )
Also on site :