Hawaii's worst flooding in 20 years threatens dam, prompts evacuations

A quick google search on jones act and hawaii reveals this page hosted by International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)

https://www.ilwulocal142.org/news-item/jones-act-fact-vs-myt...

Few things listed there are clearly false.

"Myth #2: The Jones Act Raises Prices for Hawai‘i Residents.

However, a comprehensive 2020 study by Reeve & Associates and TZ Economics found that this is simply not true.

Their survey compared the prices of 200 consumer goods—including groceries, household items, clothing, and automobiles—at major retailers like Costco, Home Depot, Target, and Walmart in both Honolulu and Los Angeles. The results showed that prices in Hawai‘i were, on average, only 0.5% higher than on the mainland, a negligible difference that cannot be attributed to the Jones Act alone."

As a frequent visitor to Oahu, i stop by Costco on the way from the airport and i can see that most consumables including milk and meat is 30-50% more expensive than at Northern California Costco. This is representative across local supermarkets as well.

So its seems that this union is trying to minimise the impact of shipping on costs of everyday goods

Critics dismiss this study as bogus:

https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2020/07/shipping-industry...

"using online prices to compare food prices at Hawaii versus Los Angeles stores is problematic. A visit today to the Keeaumoku Street Walmart showed an 18-ounce box of Cheerios selling for $4.26, before tax, versus $3.64 for its listed online price, and a four-pack of 5-ounce cans of albacore tuna for $8.43 versus $6.74 online."

That is actually true, Keamoku Walmart does not pricematch to their online prices and the only way to get those prices is to place an pickup order and wait for several hours to pick up at those prices.

Land anywhere useful is also extraordinarily expensive and developing industry is commonly blocked on the thinnest of reasoning. Hawaiians even sabotaged the interisland ferries on some trumped up environmental concerns (they complained a couple people loaded sands or rocks) seemingly being scared shitless of their own people from other islands having cheap access (the tourists just fly so it has nothing to do with overtourism concerns). You can hardly develop any infrastructure that's not tourism or residential, and residential is also usually tough outside the big island.

Also the various cultures on the islands have a tenuous peace as a legacy of cane plantation owners purposefully segregating and pitting the natives, Chinese, Filipinos, and whites against each other. This lives on in everyone sabotaging the development of any other part of the islands and things like 'Kill Haole Day' in the very welcoming public schools.

As a result of this everything is even more expensive than just the shipping and isolation issues.

There's a long history of rich assholes moving in and using their property rights in bizarre ways that gain them basically nothing while fucking everyone else.

Oprah bought a huge estate in Maui, then used it to block the back road from Kihei to upcountry, forcing a much longer drive around. It doesn't go through anything of interest to Oprah or gain her anything, just a big fuck you to everyone else because she can.

Gross mischaracterization. He filed an action in court to buy the land, because each parcel had dozens of owners that nobody even knew who they were, including the owners, until the court discovery happened.

" The land is made up of a few properties. In each case, we worked with the majority owners of each property and reached a deal they thought was fair and wanted to make on their own.

As with most transactions, the majority owners have the right to sell their land if they want, but we need to make sure smaller partial owners get paid for their fair share too.

In Hawaii, this is where it gets more complicated. As part of Hawaiian history, in the mid-1800s, small parcels were granted to families, which after generations might now be split among hundreds of descendants. There aren’t always clear records, and in many cases descendants who own 1/4% or 1% of a property don’t even know they are entitled to anything.

To find all these partial owners so we can pay them their fair share, we filed what is called a “quiet title” action. For most of these folks, they will now receive money for something they never even knew they had. No one will be forced off the land."

So we have many moral frameworks we can pull from

Deontology judges actions based on rules and principles

Consequentialism judges actions based on the consequences

What would you call it when the morality of the action depends on the income level of the victim?

What part of my comment did you understand to be a defense of Zuckerberg?