'Don't Bail Out the Cruise Industry' (theverge.com) 277
An anonymous reader shares a column: The United States economy is grinding to a halt as the country grapples with the novel coronavirus pandemic, and one of the first major actions President Trump has floated is having the government bail out the cruise line industry, which he says is a "prime candidate." He shouldn't do it. There are myriad reasons not to bail out the cruise industry's biggest players.
Here are just a few: 1. They're not really US companies. [...] 2. They pay basically zero federal income tax. [...]
3. They're bad corporate actors: These companies use the protections offered by the countries they are incorporated in as a shield. They make passengers sign over a ton of rights before they even come aboard. Many employees often face long hours and brutal working conditions.
4. They pollute the air and oceans. Every fossil fuel-powered mode of transportation pollutes the air, but cruise ships are among the worst. They emit more sulfur dioxide than all of the passenger vehicles in Europe combined. Cruise ships also pollute the oceans by dumping waste. Not just illegally, for which these companies have been repeatedly fined, but also in some cases with impunity, again thanks to protections afforded by the laws of the countries where they're incorporated. And where they've been caught, there have been coverups.
5. They are not necessary. [...]
Here are just a few: 1. They're not really US companies. [...] 2. They pay basically zero federal income tax. [...]
3. They're bad corporate actors: These companies use the protections offered by the countries they are incorporated in as a shield. They make passengers sign over a ton of rights before they even come aboard. Many employees often face long hours and brutal working conditions.
4. They pollute the air and oceans. Every fossil fuel-powered mode of transportation pollutes the air, but cruise ships are among the worst. They emit more sulfur dioxide than all of the passenger vehicles in Europe combined. Cruise ships also pollute the oceans by dumping waste. Not just illegally, for which these companies have been repeatedly fined, but also in some cases with impunity, again thanks to protections afforded by the laws of the countries where they're incorporated. And where they've been caught, there have been coverups.
5. They are not necessary. [...]
For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Insightful)
For once, I've got to agree with the anti-corporate crowd... the cruise industry is an absolute shit industry and bailing them out does virtually nothing for the US economy beyond saving a fairly insignificant amount of mostly low level jobs.
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Being anti-corporate probably means being anti-bailout, but the converse is not true.
The criterion for whether an industry gets a bailout shouldn't be how we feel about them, but how essential they are to the US national interests. Even if you *love* the cruise industry, it's hard to argue they're essential. They don't provide an irreplaceable service (like the banking industry) or employ lots of people (like the auto industry).
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally agree... I mean, don't get me wrong, I love me some cruise industry on a personal level in terms of vacations and excessive day drinking but they're just not a critical industry to the US economy and have no business being propped up by US tax payers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I am okay with bailing out other recreational industries but at the core the cruise companies are not USA companies and don't pay USA taxes and don't provide a critical service so I see no reason why taxpayers should bail them out.
If your local paint ball, laser tag, d&d shop, sports area etc needs help I don't have a problem with that. Those places have been hit hard by social distancing and employ local people and pay taxes. We do want them to stay around.
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so their headquarters are in the U.S.. Where are their ships flagged? Oh, not in the U.S. Odd, isn't it.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not flagged in the US because the US won't allow them to be flagged in the US. In order to have a cruise ship flagged in the US, it must be built in the US and have 75% of its onboard crew staffed by US citizens. Unfortunately, there's no shipyard large enough to build a cruise ship in the US, and it turns out a lot of US citizens don't like the idea of doing a 6-8 month tour on a boat just to be a cabin steward.
So, they register in "flag of convenience" countries that don't have those strict standa
Re: (Score:3)
Flags of convenience have less to do with taxes and more to do with maritime regulations. If those cruise ships were US flagged hey would be safer, run cleaner, and have better paid and better qualified crew.
The cruise companies try to run with as little overhead as possible, which is understandable. Whenever there is an accident with one, its almost always the cruise line being negligent.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps if tax and regulations weren't so strict, they wouldn't have to find workarounds.
You probably weren't around during the 1960s, but there are reasons why the regulations are so strict, if they aren't corporations will always choose the cheaper solution that creates the most damage. It got so bad that a REPUBLICAN president was forced to create the EPA and put teeth in the FDA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't jettison a ship... you jettison things from a ship, you scuttle a ship.
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not typically one to side with the anti-corporate crowd either. I have nothing against them per-se (if they're bad corporate actors, let's fix the damned tax laws), but if they're not US-based corporations and not employing US citizens, I also see no reason to use US tax dollars to bail them out. Maybe corporations will re-think whether it's a good idea to be incorporated in some Caribbean tax haven instead of the US when the shit hits the fan.
Re: (Score:3)
... but if they're not US-based corporations and not employing US citizens, I also see no reason to use US tax dollars to bail them out. Maybe corporations will re-think whether it's a good idea to be incorporated in some Caribbean tax haven instead of the US when the shit hits the fan.
And that's all we really need to know. The debate over what's essential is pretty subjective but the debate over where companies are based and how many they employ are much more clear cut. No taxes no bailout. And for those who barely paid taxes they should get a similarly prorated bailout. That alone will clear out much of the abuse. Choose to be based abroad? Let that country bail you out.
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Interesting)
You're probably right, and that's totally fine. Let them deal with the consequences then. Again, I have no problem if companies want to operate this way - there's nothing inherently wrong with legally being a foreign company and employing foreign workers. I only have a problem if they only want to suck on the US teat in times like this, though.
i.e. "It's fine if you want to move out and live on your own, but you're now completely responsible for yourself."
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:4, Informative)
There is something wrong with those tax havens, basically charging low taxes to attract other countries companies and actively stealing those countries social services that would have been paid for by those taxes. All tax revenues should be paid in the country where the revenue was generated, they provide the effective social services and infrastructure to generate that revenue, it is only fair and reasonable that ALL taxes on that revenue be paid there, to pay for the infrastructure and social development they allowed that income to be generated.
So the penalty for active theft of social services for parasiting off other countries infrastructure and social support costs should be quite severe, considering it reflects a drop in social services which means more citizens will suffer and die and failing infrastructure, pretty much an act of real world piracy and brigandage an economic act of war.
This act of economic warfare, should bring an return act of economic war and the tax and social services pillaging countries should be cut off from all transactions and their currency devalued to zero.
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:4, Funny)
so they should be free to go sleep in the bed they made.
Isn't the more appropriate phrase here sink or swim?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5)
"For once, I've got to agree with the anti-corporate crowd... the cruise industry is an absolute shit industry and bailing them out does virtually nothing for the US economy beyond saving a fairly insignificant amount of mostly low level jobs."
First, they are not US ships, they are flagged in Bermuda, Panama etc and the low level jobs you mention are done by people from the Philippines etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, there's the /. I know and love.
Everyone is dumb! I'll be in my basement!
Re:For once, I gotta agree (Score:4, Funny)
And stay there! You're supposed to be in quarantine!
Signed,
the government.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is something a moran would write:
Shitcock! [penny-arcade.com]
Bail them out (Score:5, Interesting)
On the condition they're all floating hospital ships for the duration of the pandemic
Re:Bail them out (Score:5, Insightful)
LMFTFY
"floating petri dishes"
Their entire environment is inhospitable for a healthy and clean environment. The entire structure of a cruise ship is one giant cut corner to squeeze as many humans and their germs into the smallest spaces they can possibly get by with.
Literally the opposite of what a hospital is. I might prefer to play hide and seek with coronavirus in the tundra against a pack of wolves than take medical care on a cruise ship... just packed with people with other infectious problems co-habitating with coronavirus...
Re: (Score:2)
On the condition they're all floating hospital ships for the duration of the pandemic
The "hospitals" where they send people to die. In Italy they just use tents.
Re: (Score:2)
On the condition they're all floating hospital ships for the duration of the pandemic
The "hospitals" where they send people to die. In Italy they just use tents.
Better tents than trenches. I guess.
Moneyfunnels. (Score:2)
Cruise line companies are "moneyfunnels". They don't employ large numbers of people relative to their profit, so they're not redistributing wealth to "the people". I don't feel the same way about car manufacturers because they employ a huge workforce, which has an even bigger secondary supporting industry. Yes, they're profitable, but a large amount of the earnings does end up back in our pockets. C
Re:Moneyfunnels. (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, those people deserve to have their money taken from them.
Everything about a cruise, unless you are disabled / old enough to barely be able to move, is awful.
Set agendas (cool you saw a port for half a day, did a shit discovery dive, ate at a tourist trap restaurant),
Set places (destroyed by said cruises coming into them),
Set people, stuck on a boat with a bunch of other boring morons that can't even run their own trip.
Bill Burr has it right with sinking cruise lines to thin out the population. The entire thing is garbage. Nearly straight out of Wall-E.
Re:Moneyfunnels. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever actually been on a cruise? The cruise lines are certainly far from perfect corporate citizens, but a lot of what you wrote there is just stereotypes with a side of bigotry.
Are cruise holidays for everyone? Obviously not.
Do cruise ships cause real problems, and should we demand that the industry improves to address them? Absolutely.
Is the legal and regulatory framework under which they operate offensively weak and in need of dramatic and abrupt correction? Sure.
But in the end, you could level similar criticisms at a lot of holiday and leisure activities and the ecosystems that have built up around them. I don't see much of a moral argument, or probably an economic one either, for stepping in to prop up the cruise lines with public money, any more than a hotel chain or airline, but the vitriol on your comment seems unwarranted.
Re: (Score:2)
"The cruise lines are certainly far from perfect corporate citizens, but a lot of what you wrote there is just stereotypes with a side of bigotry."
Remember, bigotry is okay... when a certain group does it. People have a deep seated need to find winners and losers in everything they interact with. It is just the nature we have. It takes a lot of get people to understand that real humans also work for cruise lines too. And while it is totally not okay to turn foreigners away at the border, it sure is shit
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe my insane rant was upvoted - but even more, I can't believe you're calling my denunciation of cruise ship lovers bigotry, on the level of slavery and the holocaust.
First of all, cruise ship patrons chose to be there. You're right, murdering cruise ships of people would murder innocent employees. Guess what's not really going to happen? Murdering cruise ships.
Second - I have been to many cruise ship port destinations. Cartagena, for example. Colombia, beautiful country. Port stop, garba
Re:Moneyfunnels. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the Africans it was America.
I'll never understand why people obsess over US slavery, which ended over 150 years ago, when slavery is, sadly, still around today. Wouldn't it make sense to help those in slavery today rather than bemoan history that is generations removed? If you're really concerned about slavery you can, right now, help stop it. Of course it's easier to talk about what you would have done different than to actually act. Here are some places where slavery is still common: https://www.oxygen.com/very-re... [oxygen.com] https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is still a popular fad and many American Politicians ride to power on the subject of slavery and white racism. It works because the subject is sensitive and every person has at least one event in their lives where they were treated poorly by someone from another race and thus sets in the problem. Its just like once one cashier has shorted you on cash, you suspect all cashiers as being thieves. It does not make much sense under any reasonable scrutiny, but that is how our brains process threat.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Africans it was America.
What history books did you get this stupidly from exactly? Several European nations made a hell of a mess out of Africa. The US had little influence on the world at the time.
If you are referring to slavery, you need to do a lot more reading. Of the over 12 million slaves that were shipped out of Africa, less than 400k were sent to what became th USA. Since the US was colonized by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, etc. many of those slave were sent to the US prior to it becoming an independent nati
Re: (Score:2)
For the Africans it was America.
You're exhibiting that famous American lack of education while lecturing everybody else. Pick up a history book dealing with Africa sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You will notice that when the Fed cut interest rates to 0%, banks did NOT make commensurate cuts to credit card interest.
Credit card rates are only weakly affected by the Fed rate. The main factor is risk of cardholder's default, and it's actually going up now.
Mortgage rates are falling, so I'm thinking about actually getting a mortgage to buy another house (my house is already paid off).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is literally the same thing. Just packaged up in a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
At the end of the day... that business just proved they are not being financially responsible by needing the bailout just like the individual with a high default risk. The fact that everyone see's this as different is what created this entire fucking problem to begin with.
No one here is getting it, not a single fucking one of you. You are all saying... I don't want them bailed out, but entire accept the fact that these syste
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day... that business just proved they are not being financially responsible by needing the bailout just like the individual with a high default risk. The fact that everyone see's this as different is what created this entire fucking problem to begin with.
Why is this a problem?
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day... that business just proved they are not being financially responsible by needing the bailout just like the individual with a high default risk. The fact that everyone see's this as different is what created this entire fucking problem to begin with.
I don't understand why bail-outs are a thing in a capitalist economy at all. I don't get to rock up to the government and say, hey times are tough pay my bills besides that's taxpayers money. So I don't understand corporate welfare *at all*. If they choose to operate a financially risky house of cards that falls apart at the first sign of trouble then how are they 'fit' to survive in a capitalist economy?
That's what I don't get.
You are a shit stacked example of why governments bail businesses out and not you! You are not worth bailing out... businesses are!
...but..but..corporations are people too.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, your credit card interest rate does not fluctuate depending on your credit score (which is a good predictor of risk of default), so that pretty much negates your argument. Nothing changes the fact that banks are borrowing at 0% and lending at up to 26%.
Mine does. My first credit card was at 26% APR (no credit score) in 2014, now it's down to 12% APR (790 credit score). AmEx is trying to pitch me a personal loan at 7% APR every time I log into their online banking.
Third, even home mortgages have not come down to the same extent as the Fed discount rate to banks.
I'm getting paper and electronic spam with mortgage proposals for as low as 3.2% APR. Given that the inflation rate has been around 2%, this means barely 1.2% above the inflation rate. This actually mirrors the Fed rate move, just half a year ago the rates were around 3.8%.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Boeing, for example, has collateral, known as "airplanes". They have property, factories. Are you really telling me Boeing couldn't float a corporate bond, when is using an unlimited well of printed money to buy up corporate paper?
The bailouts aren't going to mom&pops. They're getting SBA
To hell with them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in a city that is overwhelmed by cruise ship passengers every summer, and I'd be happy to see the cruise ship companies die. They do everything in their power to avoid paying any local taxes and fees, have bought out or driven out of business most local businesses that cater to their passengers, hire as few locals as possible during the tourist season, and a list of sins longer than I can remember.
And really, the list of reasons why not to bail them out should only need one item: They're not American companies. Let them as Liberia or whatever country they're registered in bail them out.
Re: (Score:3)
The companies involved appear to be headquartered in America but the ships are registered in whatever flag-of-convenience country benefits them the most.
100% agree that the US shouldn't be in the business of bailing out companies that don't provide economic benefit to the US.
Redefine what bailout means (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if punishing the cruise industry is justified, this doesn't seem like the time or place to debate that. The question is what these bailouts should mean.
Money should be used to make payroll and accounts payable, any other use of the money requires a reimbursement to the government during the next tax filing. No share buy-backs, no dividends, no bonus pay, nada. Keep the doors open and the employees paid so that business can return to usual quickly.
Shareholders will get absolutely nothing anyway if the company folds, at least for most companies. There's no need to artificially pump the stock market just to get the orange moron re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasteful... (Score:2)
Sending bailouts to everyone and everything because "fair" is massively wasteful in our current scenario and any similiar scenario I can think of.
In regards to this topic, I guess we're all getting a nice check here from the government soon regardless of need as well which is just as stupid. There are plenty of Americans who are doing perfectly fine financially speaking right now and a ton whose problems won't be solved by a one off $1,200. Meanwhile, those evil socialist Europeans have figured out it is fa
Why would we bail out a FOREIGN COMPANY? (Score:5, Insightful)
They choose to register in foreign countries for tax and regulatory purposes.
That is perfectly legal and acceptable. But that also means they are NOT AMERICAN companies and we should not be bailing them out.
What next, are we going to bail out the Toyota and Honda?
Re: (Score:2)
What next, are we going to bail out the Toyota and Honda?
You bailed out Toyota and Honda in the last crash, at least the US divisions of it. Canada did the same to the Canadian divisions.
Re:Why would we bail out a FOREIGN COMPANY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Honda and Toyota profits funnel back to Japan but they do pay taxes domestically first. Do you want to talk about the taxes being paid by American companies?
Side Effects (Score:2)
One issue is that there is a large industry set up of small coastal villages that depend on cruise ship visits. Many of these are situated in low income countries or areas, and is the primary income generator for the region. Killing off the cruise ship industry is going to devastate these areas.
Maybe they could permanently dock the ships near these areas and use them as floating resort/hotels?
Re:Side Effects (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska for example are part of the US. All of them dock cruise ships as well.
Hawaiian Crusline is the only American One. (Score:2)
Because Hawaiian cruses stop only at ports in the U.S., they have to be American companies. All others only cruise between American ports and foreign ones, so can get around the laws.
Even Alaskan cruises make a random stop at a Canadian port.
Bail Outs (Score:2)
No, but guess who will be probably be bailing out the countries affected? Think of all those tiny Caribbean countries who get most of their income from tourism. It won't be Cuba or Mexico bailing them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'm not American and don't have a dog in this show, but you might consider the idea of bankrupting them and buying up the assets cheap ($400 for a liner?) so you can restart a US based liner company for 1/100th of the cost of a bail out?
Couldn't afford the US based crew.. .If you are operating a US flagged ship, you have to follow US law, including minimum wage rules, workman's compensation insurance, duty hours and coast guard safety regulations and inspections.
So, you might have obtained a $400 boat, but your operational costs will be higher than the guy who registers his ship with one of the more common nations and bypasses all the expensive stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you buy them cheap, it's going to cost you a hundred times that in disinfectant.
The ever changing tides... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should no business be bailed out? How is that not in our national interest?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not in our national interest?
It's not but when you have an absolutist ideology you don't care about repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
er, I mean it is in our national interest.
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact ALL companies that are now 'headquartered' (wink, wink) in another country should fend for themselves.
Let the cruise industry die for all I care. Someone with some money will snatch up the corpses for pennies on the dollars and we'll have cruises again.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
Make bailouts to any company proportional to what they paid in taxes the last decade or so?
Let the airlines die too (Score:2)
Then they can finance new startups instead, with new people, on the condition they space the seats out better. It's better than dumping good money on today's bullshit cattle cars.
And we most definitely have to cap the bottomless well Wall Street is sucking dry right now. Many trillions already went up in smoke, and not a peep from the cheap seats!
No humanity (Score:2)
Hundreds of thousands of people work for that industry and hundreds of thousands more owe their jobs to the tourist business the ships bring to ports.
Do people matter?
Re: (Score:3)
Do people matter?
That's the wrong question.
The question is "Do corporations matter MORE than people?"
There are 2 answers:
Bail out the corps, which will (incidentally) help only the people it employs, and let other people lose their homes and health, so investors keep their dividends.
Bail out the people, which will (purposefully) help everyone, and let the corporations die so their assets can be reacquired and put to better use.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a "better use" for cruise ships?
People work in the cruise industry because the industry is profitable and provides a service that customers value. You can't magically replace that activity with something else. If you could, why didn't you personally already build it and become a billionaire?
All of the good things will continue because... magic is a good plan if you want people to be desperately poor and curse your name.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a "better use" for cruise ships?
What's a better use for ANY assets of failed corporations sold at auction? With an appropriate price, there's more uses than I would be able to list, like "cheaper fucking cruises" (for one) is like not even a full step of imagination, let alone a leap. Asking the question in the first place is a stark failure of imagination.
...You can't magically replace that activity with something else. ...
Nobody said anything about magic except you, and if you still believe in magic as an adult you're basically an NPC.
People have needs, wants and resources to pursue them, and if cruises
Re: (Score:2)
Bailing out corporations is communism but only for business.
Communism is permanent. The measures being discussed would be a bridge to 2021 or 2022 when everything goes back to normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people matter? It's a simple question.
If these companies go under, others can employ. (Score:3)
Do you think that if Carnival Corporation of Panama collapses, the ships disappear? Some other company will buy them up, probably buy the trademarks too, and restart the business when this is over.
The people's biggest problem is that they are not employed now. They'll get their jobs back whether the corporation is bailed out or not.
Re: (Score:2)
By and large, those people aren't US citizens either. Perhaps they should look to their own governments for help?
The flip side is, with the tax structures and very expensive safety regulations that no other country finds necessary, the choice isn't between foreign flagged ships and US flagged ships, it's between foreign flagged ships and going out of business.
There's more than one bad guy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the countries they're registered in bail them out.
Re:No humanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Hundreds of thousands of people work for that industry and hundreds of thousands more owe their jobs to the tourist business the ships bring to ports.
Do people matter?
Not US ports for the most part, and certainly not US flagged ships or companies. Let the tax shelter countries bail them out since that's where they are all headquartered.
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds of thousands of people work for that industry and hundreds of thousands more owe their jobs to the tourist business the ships bring to ports.
Do people matter?
Not US ports for the most part, and certainly not US flagged ships or companies. Let the tax shelter countries bail them out since that's where they are all headquartered.
You guys should just say whether you think people matter or not. Do you want all the people to lose their jobs? Want to tell them they don't matter ... because Bermuda?
I'm not even saying we should bail them out. Having some humanity is good though. And showing it looks good. Where's the humanity from you guys?
Do you expect anyone to ever show you or your family or friends any humanity? Why should they?
No, we should bail them out but... (Score:2)
Ya, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are not necessary.
Where else can you go to get stuck for 7-14 days, contract a severe intestinal illness and shit and puke enough to lose 10-15 pounds. It's a great way to lose weight fast. I'm surprised more diet plans don't include a "Cruise Ship Option". I'm sure it's as least a fun as a no-anesthesia colonoscopy.
Sizzler (Score:4, Funny)
Don't bail ANYONE out... (Score:2)
It simply is not, why governments are instituted among Men...
"American capitalism" is like... (Score:5, Insightful)
..."American cheddar" - it's basically something totally different using the same name but with "American" slapped in front of it.
For a country that is supposedly so "anti-socialism" they don't want decent healthcare, it's pretty fucking surprising that y'all are so damn eager to give welfare to failing corporations, but reluctant to give food stamps to starving children.
About Point #5 (Score:2, Insightful)
5. They are not necessary.
Who is to be the arbiter of what industry is or is not "necessary"? The global cruise industry's annual revenue is $35.5B. For an "unnecessary" industry, people sure spend a lot of money on it, so it must have some value to customers. If it truly didn't have any value, then their revenue would be zero. What other US industries should be declared "unnecessary" and abolished? Pornography ($12B in revenue)? Gambling ($240B in revenue)? Movies ($12B in revenue)? Let the market decide
When they're begging for tax dollars (Score:2)
And you're really, really bad at math. $35 billion isn't even a drop in the ocean these boats swim in. You're purposely comparing domestic numbers (gambling, movies, porn) to global ones to make your case. That is disingenuous to say the least. Do you work for a cruise line? Own one?
Even without a pandemic they are bad for health (Score:2)
And really they are just floating cheap motels with a casino.
As the summary says "They are not necessary"
Everybody's missing the point (Score:2)
So make that company whole (Score:2)
There are no US cruise ships (Score:5, Informative)
Flag states list of the largest ship registries in the world
PANAMA (22,6 %)
LIBERIA (11 %)
MARSHALL ISLANDS (6%)
HONG KONG (5,8%)
GREECE (5,3%)
THE BAHAMAS (5%)
SINGAPORE (4,8%)
MALTA (4,4%)
CHINA (3,5%)
CYPRUS (2,5%)
SOUTH KOREA (1,6%)
NORWAY (1,5%)
UK (1,4%)
JAPAN (1,4%)
GERMANY (1,4%)
ITALY (1,3%)
ISLE OF MAN (1,3%)
INDIA (1,2%)
DENMARK (1%)
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA (1%)
USA (1%)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you don't understand the work "no" (else you just like to use absolute terms even if it makes your statement misleading)
"No US cruise ships" also "Flag states... USA (1%)"
One of those statements isn't true.
bailout vs investor funding (Score:2)
Government shouldn't ever bailout an industry. If they play fast and loose, then they should deserve to fail. If they are truly necessary, then they shouldn't get it for nothing. Government should value them *in their current dire state* like any other investor fund would, and then ask for preferential voting stock based on the funds they are injecting.
Yes this means we are back on the road to government owning the means of production (as they likely become majority shareholder with each successive bailout)
My take on this (Score:2)
Of course, as the cruise lines register their ships elsewhere to avoid taxes, yeah, well.
Fuck 'em. They decided to not pay taxes, I decided to not rescue them.
You don't have a choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't bail out any businesses (Score:3)
Don't bail out any businesses. Bail out people. Those people will then spend money on businesses, and the businesses that produce things that people actually need will continue to thrive as a consequence. This whole problem was caused by people at the bottom losing access to their source of income, and the effects of that trickling up through the economy. Money trickles up, not down. The lack of money at the bottom is the cause of this problem. Sending more money to the bottom is the solution. Bailing out businesses from the top down is thoroughly anti-free-market. Make sure the potential customers have money and then let the market sort out who that money gets spent on. (And if the problem is that most of that money would get spent on paying rent or servicing debt rather than actually buying useful products and services from businesses that provide them... well, then maybe it's a problem that so many people have to devote so much of their income to paying rent and interest, and we should fix that too).
If some kind of truly essential business absolutely needs to be bailed out, then that should take the form of the government buying it for cheap, fixing it up, and then maybe selling it off again later. It doesn't even have to require any special government action, ordinary market processes can handle it. Imagine if you were rich person with infinitely deep pockets and you personally wanted to bail out an airline. Calculate the market capitalization of a bailed-out airline. Subtract the cost of the cash infusion it would take to fix them up. Divide by the number of shares. Issue lots of buy orders for that amount, and when the company tanks low enough you'll start taking ownership of it. Once you have a controlling stake, inject cash as needed to bail it out. Then issue sell orders at the new bailed-out value. Use profits from the difference between purchase price and sale price to cover the cash injection. Voila. There is no reason the government can't do that just as well,
what (Score:2)
are you fucking kidding me? the cruise "industry"? go fuck yourself!
In fact, no bail outs if 50% are employed in USA (Score:2)
These companies should NOT be bailed out by America.
All companies that get bailed out should
1) be FULLY taxed in the states. if they moved their taxation offshore, then let those nations bail them out.
2) if the company has offshored more than 50% of their work, then again, let those other nations bail them out.
3) if the company sells more than 50%
I used to work on cruise ships (Score:5, Interesting)
First and foremost, I used to work on cruise ships, but I do not think that they should be bailed out.
That said I have a problem with the points raised in the column:
1) Most major cruise companies are headquarterd in Miami or Fort Lauderdale, and they do employ large numbers of US workers. The cruise industry (not just the Crusie Lines, but also supporting organisations) generate more than 330,000 US jobs. They follow US Coastguard and CDC requirements. But their ships operate in international waters, so they are more global businesses rather than solely US companies.
2) A vast number of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in places like Grand Cayman and Ireland for the specific purposes of avoiding tax. Cruise companies are no different from Apple, Amazon and Alphabet in this regard. That said this is the reason I do not believe they should be bailed out. If they will not contribute their actual income tax to the US, they should not be allowed to receive a US Government bailout.
3) For the individual ships they must comply with the flag state the ship is registered under. As I recall NCL did try ships registered under the US flag (they still have one: the Pride of America), but they were required to have 70% US crew and labour costs alone (especially once various unions got involved) made the project prohibitively expensive and restricted the ship to US waters. Other ships use foreign crews: there were around 50 different nationalities on the ships I worked on. International labour is cheaper. While I can't really speak for others, I was paid well. I never experienced horrible conditions, but it is a ship so space is at a premium and cabins can be rather small (especially when you've had a bad day). The ships I worked on had well funded crew welfare organisations to make sure staff were taken care of. Food and medical expenses are all taken care of. I did work long hours on occasion: the ship works 24/7 every single day, so there is always work to do. Also, you can't just pick up the phone and get more people in to help when things go wrong.
4) Cruise ships MUST comply with the environmental laws of the countries whose waters they are sailing in. Suggesting they get to hide behind corporate parents is rubbish.
Cruise ships are mostly fueled by fuel oil, which is a really dirty fuel compared to petrol and diesel. It is really high in sulfur and impurities (although EU requirements that came into effect 1 Jan 2020 force cruise ships to have much lower sulfur content in their fuels). Most modern ships have exhaust scrubbers to specifically remove SOx and NOx gasses from their exhausts. Do they "emit more sulfur dioxide than all of the passenger vehicles in Europe combined..."? While they do emit SOx, even with scrubbers, I highly doubt it is more than all passenger vehicles in the EU combined. The only source I can find for this (the OP citation is behind a paywall) is an 'in house analysis' done by the Transport & Environment NGO. A numerical extrapolation based on old data by an environmental lobby group is not the same as an actual scientific study by a independent and unbiased research organisation.
As for waste, most ships have treatment plants on board. They will hold Graywater (the term for shower and washing water), treat it until it is safe, and then release it once they are in deep water. Blackwater (the term for sewage and heavily contaminated water) is treated and held until the ship is in port when it is transferred to the local treatment plants. The only time Blackwater is released is when they are way out in open ocean (eg transatlantic crossing), and then it is only treated Blackwater that is released not raw sewage. There are trash handling facilities on board, and solid waste is held until it can be offloaded in port and is not dumped overboard.
Yes, cruise ships aren't environmentally friendly but they are not as bad as some make out. Cruise ships represent a tiny portion of the shipping industry, but are the most visible and probably the most regulated.
5) Cruise ships aren't essential, but what kind of tourism is? They do offer a way for many people to get out and travel without a lot of complication. Sure, cruise ships have their issues, but nothing out there is a perfect solution.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just a Democrat talking point because they mostly used the content of the Republican bill after blocking it before. There's no actual evidence that this was some kind of sticking point--the Republicans have no problem passing it and I certainly haven't heard Trump complaining about that provision, only about random bits of attached pork.
Granted, the whole thing is more complex than that because they had to strip everything out of the House's bill for procedural reasons (i.e. to make it so that they
Re: (Score:2)
Must be the democrats themselves. How else to you amass a net worth of $120m or more on a salary of $174k.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be the democrats themselves. How else to you amass a net worth of $120m or more on a salary of $174k.
How? Using insider trading to your advantage.. And don't think they don't do that given they are pretty much immune to prosecution for such offenses so the SEC doesn't even try to prosecute them. Then there is the whole kick back concept and insider information about what might be a good investment based on what government decisions are being made. There are plenty of ways to make money, if your ethics and morals are not too much of a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that one of the big sticking points that Senate Republicans had with the House bill was the requirement that no member of the Executive or Legislative branches, or their children would be allowed to receive direct aid from the government. I wonder who that was targeted at?
You don't really know what those bolded words mean, do you?
Re:Hotels & Golf Resorts, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you asking why we would want funds for what is the primary medical provider for millions of women during a pandemic?
Planned Parenthood does more than abortions. Do you want women who do not have coronavirus going to hospitals to get pap smears when hospitals are at capacity dealing with the virus?