Re: Surplus (was:UNCLAS//N11240//Re: [MV] Import/MV's)

Antoine Compin (acompin@earthlink.net)
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:11:04 -0700

It would be very interesting to have the knowledgeable point of
view of an historian well versed in Lend-Lease and
Cash-and-Carry programs. I seem to recall that there was
something in the language of these governments that precluded
the repatriation of the US-Made equipment back into the US...
Or could it be that the QMC and Ordnance contracts with the
civilian American car makers had language limiting the resale of
these vehicles as surplus on American territory?
I know this was not a concern at all for Lend-Lease stuff going
into foreign countries army surplus...
Is there in the list someone who actually knows? it may not be
such an "often-told lie" after all...

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Foley <redmenaced@yahoo.com>
To: <mil-veh@skylee.com>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: UNCLAS//N11240//Re: [MV] Import/MV's

>
>
>
> --- Glenn Goodman <GGOODMAN@novell.com> wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> > I believe it has evreything to do with protecting
> > the market for civilian
> > vehicle manufacturers. After all, enormous stocks of
> > good equipment were
> > dumped at sea after WW2 (eg. "Million-dollar Point"
> > in the Solomons) rather
> > that be sold as surplus. It allowed manufacturers to
> > make brand-new stuff,
> > which otherwise would not have happened. It gets the
> > economy moving again.
> >
> > Steve.
> > steven@phaedra.apana.org.au
> >
===============================================================
> > I believe you are correct for the most part. And
> > that would be fine and good for vehicles that are
> > also produced for the public. What about vehicles
> > that the civvy market does not produce? Like right
> > hand drive vehicles that some people have a valid
> > need for. (My wife is a rural mail carrier and we
> > had to purchase a vehicle for her.)
> > And now they are surplusing pickups and SUVs and
> > bunches of other stuff, but no jeeps. What gives?
> > They ought to at least be consistent. I also don't
> > like the fact that I've already paid for items they
> > are destroying. If someone came up with a way to
> > market surplus better I'll bet we could stimulate
> > the economy without all the waste. Waste drives me
> > nuts. That's why I like this list. We all have a
> > basic desire to preserve the rare.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!
>
> I don't think Steve is a liar, but what he's saying is one of
those
> "often told lies" that seem to be true because they are told
so often.
>
> I can't believe that the economy woiuld have suffered after
the war
> because of the availibility of heavy trucks, logging and
farming would
> have been just two of the beneficiaries. Oil produciton would
have
> still been hot and heavy because of the cheaply available
vehicles.
>
> You know, I think the economy would have been better off if
they hadn't
> destroyed all of those vehicles. Just like today when the
government
> says the economy is so good one has to ask "Who's
economy?!?!??!" Sure
> the car companies MAY have suffered but someone would have
found a way
> to profit, its just a question of who.
>
> Joe
> >
> > ===
> > To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send
> > the single word
> > UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
> > <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
> >
> >
> > ==To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send
> > the single word
> > UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
> > <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
> >
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>
> ===
> To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single
word
> UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
<mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
>

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.