...Lockheed Ruins Eight 123' Coast Guard Cutters!

Henry Spencer wrote:
(The consolidation of established firms has been more conspicuous in the
last 10-15 years, but it was happening long before that.

When it really got going full tilt in aerospace was right after the end
of the Cold War; for a while there, it was around a merger a week.

Pat

(Henry Spencer) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jim Kingdon wrote:
Much though I hate to say it :-), the current mess is *not*
the fault of the current White House. The previous one,
and the one before that, and also the two or three before
that, were just as inattentive about this.

It wasn't inattention, it was deliberate policy. At least,
that's how I remember it. (remember the debates about "is
there enough shipbuilding business to support N
shipbuilders?" in the 90's).

I would still call it inattention, because the long-term way
to deal with such a situation is to encourage newer, more
efficient entrants, not to worry about whether the incumbents
should merge or not. A singleminded focus on mergers and
consolidation among the incumbents is precisely the mistake
that was made. Wrong *issue*, not wrong *answer*.

From another point of view, it wasn't inattention, it was a
deliberate policy formulated by business interests and forced on
candidates and incumbents who need campaign funds. Most of the
time of a Congressman is goes not to formulating legislation ...
it's what they call "dailing for dollars"...from the moment they
win an election...begging contributors for money for their next
campaign.

Consider this (I've posted this on political UseNet groups): Some
time after republicans took over Congress in 1994, Rep. Dolittle
CA.(R) was on C-Span's Washington Journal. He said that in his
first race for office, a local California office, he was losing
badly. Then six businessmen had a meeting with him. Suddenly he
had (he admitted this) tons of money for advertising and went on
to win the office. The moral of the story...Dolittle is now being
investigated as part of the Abramoff scandal. What promises did
he make to those six businessmen?

Want honest officeholders? Then we need public financing of
elections. Too often this is labeled as a way to loot the
treasury by simply signing up for a campaign in order to get
money. The way to prevent this is require a bond to return all
funds to the government if the candidate fails to get some
specified percent of votes cast.

In article ,
wrote:
I would still call it inattention, because the long-term way
to deal with such a situation is to encourage newer, more
efficient entrants, not to worry about whether the incumbents
should merge or not...

From another point of view, it wasn't inattention, it was a
deliberate policy formulated by business interests and forced on
candidates and incumbents who need campaign funds...

Well, note that I never said it was *inadvertent* inattention. :-)
There's certainly no shortage of people who benefit from keeping new
entrants out, all for the good of the country of course, and they can be
depended on to thump the "qualified suppliers and decadal megacontracts"
tub for all it's worth. (The absolutely ideal situation, of course,
being a regulated monopoly. Perhaps I should say "regulated" monopoly.
Or just "ULA"...)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
Yeah, its pretty amazing. One might say that the USN and USCG might
suggest to their US suppliers that the USN and USCG might not be
averse to buying ships and boats from overseas.
That might put a scare up the " more efficient private businesses ".

If you want efficiency, I'm afraid you have to look elsewhere than the
government's captive design bureaus. Suitable companies *do* exist within
the US; the trouble is that they're not "qualified suppliers", and also
that they're typically averse to contracts where the paperwork tonnage
exceeds the vessel tonnage (which might not be an issue with the USCG but
certainly is with the USN).

The current situation among defence/space contractors really is mostly the
government's own stupid fault. It's in the nature of the larger and more
established firms in a field to merge into still bigger ones, especially
when business is bad. The way you prevent this from producing monopolies
or oligopolies is to keep the door open to aspiring newcomers
-- both by
going easy on the paperwork and the "qualified supplier" rules, and by
making sure that some of the work comes in packages of suitable sizes (the
one-big-contract-every-ten-years syndrome guarantees steady shrinkage of
the contractor pool,



In the business world this is when a company is controlling an
ever larger share of a declining market. A viscous cycle into
oblivion.


since it's naturally politically impossible to take
any sort of perceived risk with such megacontracts). A strenuous effort
to preserve competition at all levels, preferably *including* full
production, also helps: "you can have one contract for the price of two,
or two for the price of two".


Problem is it's hard to have market forces work at the supplier
level without the same being true for the customers.
With the new goal being a replacement shuttle and the moon
the govt makes sure only a couple companies could
possibly handle it. But with SSP the goal might be
to orbit x lbs of payload for y dollars. Then everyone
in the industry has a chance to compete.

But not now, not anymore, the little guys have only the
rich and famous circuit. Which lasts how long? Only to the
first accident, that's how long. It's gotta be about payload
not passengers, for start-ups, for crying out loud.

The start-ups can't afford the risk. Not so much in
personal liability, but in having one slip-up among
any one of them causing the entire market to dry up
overnight. As a business venture that would define
high risk.

The rich and famous...on a wing and a prayer!

Pahlease! It's a business plan that's asking for it.

For low cost to orbit advances, for spaceports all over
NASA must have a goal that first and foremost
requires lots of cheap cargo to orbit where risky
is ok most of the time.




Much though I hate to say it :-), the current mess is *not* the fault of
the current White House.


I wouldn't blame them either for all the problems, only for the
ones they created. The Bush administration has allowed
big business to have a field day, the contracts are all
written by, and quite often for, the contractors. And look
what happens! Whether with Halliburton in Iraq, or with
big pharma writing health insurance legislation, one
mess after another. No oversight, no consequences, no
competition, just one big gang-rape of the taxpayers.
This administration raised the bar on corruption.



The previous one, and the one before that, and
also the two or three before that, were just as inattentive about this.
(The consolidation of established firms has been more conspicuous in the
last 10-15 years, but it was happening long before that. In 1961, the RFP
for the Apollo CSM -- very much a qualified-suppliers-only affair -- went
to *fourteen* companies.) And the vultures are now coming home to roost.


Two things though that should be considered.
A smaller agency like NASA can be effected
far more by these corporate ills than the larger
military projects. Congress watches the Pentagon
rather closely and everyone gets a say on new programs.
But no one really cares about NASA all that much.
If Lockheed steals the agenda for it's own purposes, then
mucks it all up...

Well....not that many people on Capital Hill would
raise much of a fuss. Gotta pick your battles in
politics and no one is going to take a stand
for a directionless mash of pork-barrel projects.

And the other thing....

When you combine that sad situation with the
simple fact that no one goes to the Dept of Defense
or OSHA or the Commerce Dept or any other
govt. agency for ...inspiration and hope, or to
dream of a wondrous future,...like they do with
NASA. All those other agencies serve our physical
needs and desires.

Each new probe to Mars is little different than
the Royal Geographical Society sponsoring
another trip by Darwin, say, or to the Arctic.

It's about our intellectual and spiritual needs
in the sense of understanding and exploring
the natural world.


SSP creates a market for the infrastructure
that will enable almost any future goal.
Including the prospect of unlimited clean
energy.

The moon destroys the market for start-ups
consolidates the power of a few corporations
while providing little or no forseeable benefits
to society.

I mean, one choice is great for Lockheed and
the other is great for our future.




--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |