Defense Conversion
* The Times has reported the very depressing results of a survey of high-technology defense firms in Los Angeles County that cast serious doubts on their ability to convert to a commercial footing (“Defense Contractors Fail to Convert, Study Finds,” Feb. 9).
Clearly, the “culture” of doing business in defense is markedly different from that of the commercial world, and it has been shown to be not very adaptable. It is hoped that some of this will be rectified by the government’s current interest in overhauling the defense acquisition system. An additional and very important factor in defense technology conversion is the new government emphasis upon dual-use technology developments sponsored by the Departments of Defense and Commerce.
It is interesting that Michael Boskin, former economic adviser to President Bush, absolutely forbade any consideration of dual-use development during their reign, contending that the government must stay out of “industrial policy.” This inhibited the United States from exploiting the commercial applicability of much of our defense technology developments not only domestically, but also in international competition.
It is a bit repulsive to read Boskin’s current pleas for increasing “pork barrel” defense contracting to California in order to assist in our state’s economic recovery (Feb 6). This would appear to be completely antithetical to his image as a conservative economist. It is clear, though, that Boskin does share President Bush’s abhorrence of the “vision thing.”
MARVIN STERN
Santa Ynez
* Your article omits an important fact. The path to success for the corporate hierarchy is to reduce head-count and downsize their company. We are still in the nightmare grasp of the Harvard MBAs who look for a quick quarterly profit to show the stockholder. McDonnell stock went from $38 per share to over $115 by promising to downsize. Unfortunately, most of the downsizing will be done in the L.A. Basin.
In the industrial climate that I have described, how can you expect companies to hang on to high-priced help and invest in research and development? Japanese companies had been giving research grants to universities and buying our research-and-development oriented companies so that they could own the results of our inventive genius. The present economic slump in Japan has put a damper on these activities. Inventive genius would seem to have little value in either country at the moment.
I can offer no answers, other than that we need a long-term commitment from the federal government. I do not see any real answers coming from a man who dealt with an economy smaller than that of the Los Angeles area.
LEON H. COLEMAN
Westminister
