[Milsurplus] Re: surplus ships fleet

[Peter Gottlieb]

Very interesting.  Like today, policies were likely driven by lobbying and maybe 
Eimac didn't lobby as well as they made tubes.  Or it might simply have been 
that the tubes were considered inconsequencial.

I think this is a crock and amounts to a giveaway to defense contractors at the 
expense to the taxpayer.  The taxpaying public paid for that equipment and as 
such I would expect that the government attempt to get as much use as possible 
from it.  If it is deemed surplus to needs or obsolete, it should be sold at 
auction for the highest possible price, even if scrap.  The government is not 
there for the contractors, it is there for the people of this country.

Peter


w8au at sssnet.com wrote:
> At 11:34 AM 2/27/06, telegrapher at att.net wrote:
> 
>> in the Pacific, my dad who was in the AAF out there told me of times 
>> they would take barge loads of radio gear out into the ocean areas and 
>> dump everything overboard.  New, repaired etc.  Didn't make any 
>> difference as the Gummit had agreed that they would not return this to 
>> the US economy.  WOuld cause a big overload and reduce production 
>> causing companies who had gummit contracts for war material to have 
>> severe cash flow problems trying to compete with war surplus material 
>> recovery.
> 
> 
> No one has mentioned the "tube" situation.... They apparently did not 
> adhere to this philosophy with transmitting/receiving tubes....
> EIMAC almost went out of business when 304TL's and other tubes went on 
> surplus market for 75 cents apiece, etc.   Was this policy selective?
> 
> Perry w8au
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>