US and other Nato countries should not bother with protecting merchant ships attacked in the Red sea. The shipping companies have to rely on the navies of their flag states for protection. The 10 largest flag states for shipping are:
Panama, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta, Bahamas, China, Greece, Japan
Hong Kong is now China. But there is still an independent shipping tax haven there. The shipping companies avoiding taxes in western countries does not deserve protection from the same countries.
They can get a return of the tax money by letting the mentionee countries send their navies. Greece is a NATO country, so NATO can participate to some degree with support to the flag state navies.
*Guess this was a popular opinion.
My guess is this would be a “penny-wise but pound foolish” or “stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime” approach. The main group “losing out” on tax benefits by allowing this loophole are nation states (or groups of nation states) and are well aware of it. As such, its likely that they make even more money from other steps in this chain toward the GDP or other measures that they’re interested in. So while they could force the shipping companies to flag ships for defense, doing so would me less overall money for the nation states providing a safe and predictable environment for international commerce (safe for commerce).
Do you get where I’m going with this or would you like more detail?
I work in the industry and see how the industry treat it’s workers, climate and environment.
For me it’s more important to future proof our species then feeding some capitalist hedgefund dollars.
Flagging the ships to countries with proper societal structures with military defence and laws is beneficial for everyone except the sharks. Lemmy is pretty anti-capitalist untill their cheap Chinese electronics are under threat.
IMO has codes to better the conditions at sea with SOLAS, MARPOL and MLC. With a foot inside the industry you are a fool to see these regulations are far from enough.
The regular philipine seaman is onboard 9 months on a single contract, and has to get a new contract for the next time. The regular western seafarer has a 1/1 rotation with an employment contract with a shipping company.
More expensive shipping forces less shipping. Which might re-establish local industries. Europe made much of its stuff before. Now it’s moved to cheap countries in the east. Norway sends fish to china for processing, it gets sent back and sold in Norway. This is insane to me.
Norway has 1 shoe maker left. Other Norwegian shoemakers has their head office in Norway, but production is moved to Asia.
So you’re making a philosophical argument instead of a pragmatic one? Until those in power agree with your mission statement of “future proof our species”, any desired actions toward that aim are moot.
While our current system has lots of downsides, it allows for nearly everyone to have more than they did before (yes it is disproportionately distributed). Additionally, the large global interconnected system is the strongest check against war in history. Trade helps prevent total global war.