N2EY ) writes:

I figured that Wayne was right and that the same "hook" that got me
fiddling with antennas, peering into the chassis of my SX-101A
trying to get a little more ooomph out of it, got them too.

The trend was clear early on. Building up the nation's technical and
manufacturing base was a national priority in Japan from VJ day
forward.

Interesting thing about 'prophets' like W2NSD - people remember the
few times when they were right but forget the many many times when
they were not.

And he's had more time after the fact to write about it than he did
to talk about it before incentive licensing came into being.

While it's been some time since I've gone through them, I read and reread
back issues of 73. I don't recall any mention of Japan in the sixties.

Indeed, Japan seemed to be a non-entity at the time. They were starting
to make inroads, likely a lot of the accessories were increasingly "made
in Japan", but as you already mentioned, they were often sold with
a US name on it. "Made in Japan" still seemed to be a fairly derogative
term, denoting sloppy design and/or workmanship.

But then when Japanese companies were the major players, say from the mid
to late seventies, of course Wayne wrote about Japan. Saying after the fact
that the Japanese rules made for such growth, in hams and their ham industry,
is a lot different from seeing it (or not seeing it) before it had happened.

The same can be said about incentive licensing. I have no doubt that Wayne
disliked incentive licensing, but I'm not so sure he foresaw what would
happen. I don't think he cared. He didn't want to lose frequencies, and
that was his main opposition. But after the fact, he could find all kinds
of things that happened, whether or not they were a result, and blame
them on incentive licensing, and of course say "I told you so".

I don't have the animosity towards Wayne that many seem to have. I liked
73 when it was in its prime, and that was a serious contribition to amateur
radio. But you can indeed see his "after the fact" predictions. He often
stretches things to fit his scenario.

One really has to go back and read his editorials from the sixties in order
to define how much of he foresaw, and what it was he foresaw. His later
editorials are much more vivid (and were repeated many times), but that does
not mean they were what he said in the sixties.

Michael VE2BVW