Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil
From: dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems?
Summary: The Feds already own most of the plants occupied by contractors
Message-ID: <5700@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 90 16:17:03 GMT
References: <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1018@dg.dg.com>
Organization: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Lines: 63

In article <1018@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes:
> What is really the trade off that is being proposed here,
> though?  Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent
> the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space
> shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on?  At what
> point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus
> buy"?

In most cases, the Federal Government already owns the plant which is
being occupied by the contractor.  Drive by the General Dynamics
plant in Ft. Worth.  It says Air Force Plant No. 6.  Drive by
the Palmdale, CA plant where Lockheed, Rockwell, and others
build stuff for the Gov.  It says Air Force Plant No. 42.  I have
worked at three contractor facilities.  Two were leased, and the
lease was paid by the government, and the other (Rockwell/Downey)
was Government owned.

Where do you cut it off?  It's a judgement call, but it seems clear
to me that military aircraft programs (with the exception of 
transports which are similar to commercial transports) are cases
of the Government providing everything and the stockholders getting a profit.

> It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more
> efficient system and serve to engender capitalism.  Isn't the
> biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and
> some need looking to be filled? 

It is if there are proper competitive methods.  The only real competition
in the current system is to get the contract in the first place,
so the proper policy is to underbid everybody and then stick it
to the customer.  Which is exactly what they do.  As you mention
below, they're just responding to the environment which they
have been put in.  I don't consider the contractors basically
dishonest, but they operate in an environment which fosters fudging the truth.

> 
> I think that its capitalism at its finest
> to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away
> with!
Well, I'm not so sure about this.  Dishonesty and mistrust
are not good for any society.  In principle the dishonest
operator eventually gets his due, but in the mean time it
disrupts the system.

It's really a problem when you have a customer who can't go
broke.

> Fix the government regulations and
> enforcement systems, not our economic system.

So we agree here?

>  
> Arch Hughes
> One man's oppinion.

And one more man's opinion.

-- 
Perry G. Ramsey           Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu   Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu    We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, 
			  And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all.