Box 1, Folder 32 – HP Management

 

March 17, 1975, Managing Hewlett-Packard for the Future

 

HP initiated a new training program called ‘HP Executive Seminar’ a full seven day program. Packard kicked off the first day with this talk.

 

3/17/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard welcomes the new ‘students’ to the first Executive Seminar and says he would like to tell them why the program was established and what they hope it will accomplish. He also says he has an ulterior motive: “If I tell you what I hope you will get out of this program it may have some effect on what you try to get out of it.

 

Packard emphasizes that it is his job, and the job of each one of them to see that HP continues to provide a wide range of opportunities for advancement to all people regardless of race, religion or sex.

 

“The real motivating reason for this program,” he says, “was the realization at the end of fiscal 1973 that the company was heading for some serious problems in the financial area and this difficulty was the result of our failure to manage some of the affairs of the company the way they should have been managed.”

 

He acknowledges that the company experienced very rapid growth in 1972 and 1973, due in large part to an expansive world economy, and the introduction of a large number of outstanding new products.

 

“In this environment of high demand for our products and a sellers market for material and labor, we failed in at least three areas to do the right kind of a job in managing our affairs.

 

“We allowed our inventories to grow more rapidly than necessary.

 

“We were lax in collecting accounts receivable on the sale of our products at a time when demand was high and when payment discipline could easily be enforced without any impact on volume.

 

“We neglected to keep profitability up at the very time when it should have been at its highest level. Price controls made it difficult to improve profitability on older products, but to a large degree the problem of profitability was our fault because we failed to price new products properly. This was because of a failure on the part of some of our managers to recognize that it is very seldom safe to price a new product on the basis of anticipated high volume production costs before the high volume production costs have in fact been achieved.

 

“By failing to recognize this very important management principle, we built into our pricing on some important new products an assured loss – and it was difficult to correct the situation under price controls.”

 

Packard says that they have had some other management problems in addition to the main three he mentioned so far, the first being that “at least one major product was put on the market before it was fully developed.” He adds that that situation caused him “some personal chagrin, after preaching for three years in Washington about the evils of putting a new weapon system into production before it has been developed to find that some of my proteges in the management ranks here at HP had made the same fatal mistakes.”

 

Packard says he also found that in “a number of cases management responsibility had not been clearly defined.” He says he “called on one marketing office after I returned from Washington in 1972 and asked who was in charge, and no one in the office knew who was in charge.”

 

“I would say that these management problems which became visible and serious at the end of 1973 were the result of two management attitudes which have caused similar problems in many companies.

 

“The first is the failure of management to recognize that it is just as easy to make a profit today as it will be tomorrow. Actions taken which result in reducing short term profit in the hope of increasing long term profit are very seldom successful. Such actions are almost always the result of wishful thinking and almost always fail to achieve an overall optimum performance.

 

“There are two kinds of management actions which can cause great trouble in this area. One, which I have alluded to, is [pricing] a new product on the basis of what one hopes the cost of production will be in the future. The only safe way is to price it on the basis of what you know the cost will be – and if in doubt, add a margin, don’t subtract it, and then reduce the price only if, in fact, the cost is reduced.”

 

It can be argued, Packard points out, that if the price is kept low volume will pick up and thus reduce costs. “If one is lucky,” he says, “action based on this line of reasoning can be very successful.” He adds however, that, “Management decisions should not be based on the hope for luck. We must seek in our management decisions those which will provide a high assurance against failure and I believe this can be done without reducing the opportunities for success.” He concludes that, as far as pricing policies go, “let’s play it safe…and price new products in accordance with known costs. We can always bring prices down as costs come down.”

 

“The second problem which became more serious in 1973 had to do with the balance between what is best for the division and what is best for the company.”

 

“…decisions as to product profitability long and short term for the division, Packard says, “are likely to also be best for the company. On the other hand, the management and allocation of assets, distribution of the R&D effort, and many management issues relating to marketing require surveillance on a company-wide basis.”

 

On the subject of inventories Packard allows, “That if the company had unlimited resources, inventories would be kept at a level so that the production losses due to shortages would be balanced in an optimum way against the cost of carrying the inventory.

 

“While it is not always possible to balance this equation with great precision, this is what the manufacturing manager tries to do. He can bend the balance in either direction. If he gets pressure from above, which he usually does, to improve his shipments, he will be naturally inclined to lean toward larger inventories, double ordering and other devices to assure

that no shortages will prevent him from getting his quota out the door by the end of the month.

 

“But resources are limited and beyond the cost effectiveness of larger inventories is the overall corporate question of available capital and the application of available capital to inventory requirements and other corporate needs, physical plant expansion, R&D expenditures and marketing expenditures as balanced against production expenditures.”

 

Managing accounts receivable pose a similar problem he says. Sales men may be able to get the business easier if they give generous terms of payment to the customer. Resources are limited and “..an understanding of the overall corporate situation should help managers in marketing make better decisions in their area of responsibility.”

 

“We want [management people] at HP to be exposed to what people in other companies are doing and to the best academic thinking on management. We do not believe the thinking of others should be accepted without the most careful consideration and without an actual testing in practice in our own company.

 

“I say this for one very important reason. The way this company has been managed in the past has been reasonably successful. For this reason we must he absolutely sure before we go off in some other direction that it will, in fact, result in improved performance.

 

“Perhaps the most important reason for this program is to encourage a better understanding of the traditional HP management philosophy. I do not propose the policies we have followed for over three decades should be continued forever without change, but I do hope we will be very careful when we do make a change, to be sure it will be for the better.”

 

Managers should know “what is going on in the outside world,” Packard says. He contrasts the area of government regulations in 1975 with what it was when he and Bill started the company in 1939. “We spent the first six months or so doing business in a residential area in Palo Alto. The government forms and reports could all be handled by my wife, working in her spare time. That would not be possible today.

 

“Today,” he says, “there is hardly any action that can be taken by a manager which is not prescribed in some way by governmental regulations. It is essential for every manager to understand these restrictions on what can be done.” Some of these regulations can involve matters of personal liability, and it is “essential to avoid problems which could become serious, both for the company and for the individual managers.”

 

Laws are changing all the time Packard points out and there is “an opportunity for people at the management level in business and industry to have some influence on how these regulatory matters may develop in the future.

 

“I hope there will be some discussion of this issue during the week. What can we do to influence in a constructive way new legislation that has an impact on business and industry?”

 

Packard says he would like to outline some of the management policies which have been “in some degree, responsible for our success in the past and which I believe will serve us well in the future.”

 

The statement of corporate objectives provides, he says, “the foundation for our management policies and philosophy. I believe these objectives have served their purpose well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. They have been changed very little over the years – some changes in wording and in emphasis, but no basic change in substance.”

 

“I want to discuss these objectives and make some specific points today which I hope will encourage discussion during the week. What is important is not how Bill and I see these objectives, but how you see them and whether you and all other management people in the company see them in essentially the same way.”

 

Packard takes the major objectives and talks about them one by one. The first being Profit.

 

“Profit”

 

The first objective is profit. “Profits can be used in two different ways to finance growth,” Packard says. “The first is on a pay as you go basis – resources to build the company come from a direct reinvestment of profits. The second way is to use profits to attract investment, either through equity investment or debt which must be financed with future profits.

 

“In some industries, those which require very large capital investments, the pay as you go approach is not possible. There is also a school of thought that the capital needs should be obtained by leveraging profits and equity financing with large amounts of debt financing.”

 

Packard flatly states that “Whatever the arguments, it is not HP policy to leverage our profits with long term debt and we want every manager at every level to know this and to act accordingly. This basic and sound approach we have used for the past thirty-five years will continue to work just as well in the future as it has in the past and I can see no possible circumstance that would justify a change.”

 

“Even though profit must come ahead of everything else, it under no circumstance can be in place of our other objectives as a company, for our other responsibilities as managers. The achievement of all of our other objectives is dependent on meeting our profit objective. At the same time, management attention given to our other objectives will help us meet our profit objective.

 

“Profit is not very well understood by many people. I am sure including some of our employees. It is important for each of you in dealing with our people and with the public to make the point that profit is the seed corn that keeps the economy going. Here at HP, profit is less than 10 cents of every sales dollar and that is all we need to keep our company strong and our jobs secure. For all of industry, profit is less than 10 cents and very few companies require profits in excess of 10 cents in every dollar to be sound and successful. Most people believe profits are much higher and we need to do everything we can to dispel that belief.”

 

“Customers”

 

“It is …very important to foster the right employee attitude. Everyone in the organization must be firmly indoctrinated with the idea that he or she are, in fact, working for the customer.

 

Every employee must realize that if the customer is not satisfied with our products there will be no job. In other words, it is the responsibility of every manager to keep all of the people in his organization properly motivated to do the best possible job for our customers.”

 

“Personnel Affairs”

 

‘Management is getting things done through people,’ Packard quotes another speaker on management. “…dealing with personnel problems,” Packard says, “is the prime responsibility every manager at every level. When the company was much smaller we did not have a personnel department because I wanted to make sure every manager in the company dealt with his own personnel problems. I thought, and still do, that taking care of his or her people was the most important part of every management job.

 

“We have a strong personnel department today. It has several important responsibilities. One is to make sure the best personnel policies and practices are maintained in every part of the company. Another is to provide and administer a number of services for managers at all levels. In no case is the personnel department expected to handle the manager’s personnel problems—he or she must accept and handle the personnel responsibility to be a good manager.”

 

“I believe we have done a fairly good job in maintaining our company philosophy in respect to our employees. Even so, Bill and I receive a few complaints about some of our managers’ actions in relation to our people that indicate a lack of understanding about what we expect. I hope you will include some discussion this week on how a manager should work with his or her people. This is such an important aspect of management that it almost transcends everything else. It is the key to productivity, to leadership and to the continuing progress and success of our company.”

 

 

“Dealing With the Public”

 

Packard brings up the corporate objective dealing with public relations which is to “manage our affairs so that we are good corporate citizens in the communities where we operate. Division managers, where an HP division is large in relation to the size of the community, have the greatest responsibility in this area of management activity. Our people have done well in recognizing and accepting this responsibility, but they have often been thrown into a situation and left to sink or swim. Because we have a number of managers who have done well in this important area we should be able to use this experience to help prepare people before they are given an assignment where dealing with the public suddenly becomes a new facit (sic) of their job. I would encourage the establishment of a course to cover this subject. It should be given by HP managers who have been through the mill, and I am sure it will be helpful to those who may be asked to assume higher levels of management responsibility in the future.”

 

Packard says that people used to feel that American business and industry were good. “Today much less than a majority of the people in America belief this to he true. It is this public attitude which has brought about many new laws and governmental regulations which affect the management actions of our company today.

 

“These laws and regulations have made the job of every manager more complex and more difficult than it was two or three decades ago. This situation will probably become worse in the future, given the punitive attitude toward business and industry in the ranks of government from the local to the federal level.” And Packard makes some suggestions as to what may be done about this situation.

 

“The first requirement this situation places on every manager at every level is that he or she must know what the law requires and strive as hard as possible to avoid any illegal act. Failure to know the law is never a defense in court and it can never be an excuse for any HP manager. We plan a series of courses on business law to make sure everyone in a management assignment knows his legal responsibilities and we will expect every manager in the company to complete this education covering legal responsibilities of management as a condition of advancement.”

 

“In Conclusion”

 

Packard concludes with saying that “…while management skill is essential to handle important areas of responsibility in the company, it is also important that every manager have a good grasp of the substance of what he is responsible to manage. Every manager must ‘know the territory’ as the salesman says. No manager in my view can do a good job at the division level if he does not know all about his products, all about his customers, all about his competitors. I do not agree with those who say a good manager can manage anything. I believe, especially in a field of high technology such as ours, every manager must really know the business he is managing. I emphasize this because I want no misunderstanding – management skill is not enough – every manager, if he is any good, must also ‘know the territory.’

 

“I hope to meet with you for a discussion the last day of the program next week. I will be particularly interested in hearing your assessment of this week’s course and having your recommendations on how we can make the program better for the future.”

 

3/18/75, Copy of a letter from PR  Director, Dave Kirby, to his staff sending them a copy of the above talk

Box 4, Folder 1 – General Speeches, includes correspondence relating to speeches

 

Jan. 20, 1975 Financial Management Conference, Washington D. C.

 

1/20/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with some handwritten additions by Packard

 

Packard says that he believes it is a good thing that they are devoting the conference to a discussion of the federal budget process, “hopefully focusing on the all-important question – can the Congressional budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 be implemented in a way that the federal government will have better control of its spending?” And he adds that he is not certain it can be, saying, “I welcome the opportunity to explore this issue with you.

 

“I also will try to point out some other areas where I believe you can be helpful to the Congress and to the various departments and agencies in the executive branch in which you serve.”

 

Although Packard has some reservations about how the new budget procedures may work in practice, he says, “At least now there is a mechanism that can be made to work – if there are enough people in the Congress who want to make it work, and who are in agreement on what they really want this federal budgeting procedure to do.”

 

Packard sees “…three things which are expected to be improved by this legislation. The first is to make federal spending more effective as a fiscal tool to influence the economy of the country in a positive, constructive way. Fiscal policy is widely acknowledged as a way to accelerate or decelerate economic growth and to help control inflation.”

 

“The second expectation is to provide a better mechanism for the Congress to assess the issues and establish priorities of both the programs in the President’s budget and those programs which may be initiated by the Congress.” He sees a problem here “because the most accurate information and the most objective analysis will not always assure the same order of priorities, nor agreement on the issues….I have the impression, and maybe I am wrong, that there are quite a few people around this town who are quite able to use any fact and any analysis to support whatever they have already decided as the right thing to do.

 

“But I should hasten to add, although it does not always appear to be so, there is a fairly high level of responsibility in the Congress on issues that are really important, and better information and analysis certainly should help to produce better legislation and better federal budgets.

 

“The third objective is to establish a more realistic time table so that, hopefully, the appropriations can all be approved, kept within the fiscal policy constraints that are established, and enacted before the beginning of the fiscal year. On this point we will have to just wait and see.”

 

Returning to a discussion of fiscal policy issues which Congress will be addressing, Packard says, “…there will be a very difficult problem with riming, as we can see from what has happened in this current economic crisis. In the spring of 1974, the economy was going strong, although with an unacceptably high rate of inflation. Responsible fiscal policy under the situation that prevailed earlier in the year would certainly have called for a budget surplus for the 1975 fiscal year, beginning in July.”

 

Packard says this situation prevailed “…until about October of 1974, when a considerable number of economists and others began to express doubts that inflation was the main problem in our economy.

 

“Today, just three months later, I judge the consensus of the experts has turned about 179 degrees and most would now support a budget deficit….This situation is a good example of why there is a real problem for the Congress in deciding what kind of fiscal medicine the economy is going to need six months or a year ahead, even if one assumes the Congress can decide on the right medicine for the current state of the economy. This recent downturn in the economy has been more rapid and more severe than most changes in the past but the Congress will have a most difficult time without a better crystal ball.

 

Packard sees “a number of specific and unusual events that, together, generated this troublesome combination of inflation and depression we are plagued with today. The first event was the devaluation of the dollar against the currencies of our major international trading partners, and decoupling the world monetary system from gold that occurred in the summer of 1971.”

 

“…a case can be made,” Packard feels, “that the 1971 dollar devaluation was the result of a long period of bad federal fiscal policy – many years of deficits, heavy spending overseas to help restore our allies and Japan after World War II, and the fact that the United States has carried too large a share of the cost of national security for Europe and Japan for too long.

 

“Let’s face it,” he says, “…even before 1971, the real value of the dollar had, in fact, deteriorated in respect to many other currencies and sooner or later a devaluation had to occur.”

 

“The impact of this 1971 devaluation was compounded by federal fiscal policy in 1972 in a way that had very little to do with the congressional budget process. Federal spending was simply accelerated to improve the economy in the election year in ways I am sure I do not have to explain to this audience.

 

“Then in the fall of 1973 came the Yom Kippur War, the oil embargo and a four-fold increase in the cost of international oil. This was a highly inflationary incident. It was completely independent of domestic fiscal or monetary policy and, as you all well know, caused a substantial increase in the cost of energy derived from oil, and materials and products made from oil.”

 

“To compound the problem, the federal government undertook a number of actions over the last several years which were done for worthy purposes, supported by both the Congress and the administration, and yet only added to the inflation already triggered by the series of unusual events I have described.

“Federal requirements placed on actions by business and industry in such areas as air and water quality, occupational safety, and automobile safety, are no doubt inspired by lofty ideals and are also needed in some form, and at least to some degree. At the same time, these federal  regulations imposed on business and industry have added real and substantial costs to the production of goods and services, and have been the major factor in causing this concurrent inflation and recession.

 

“There is no doubt in my mind that the serious depression of the automobile industry is the main reason that what was a modest downturn in the economy has turned into the worst recession since the 1930s. “…our economy is so dependent on the automobile industry that we can not have national prosperity without a healthy state of prosperity in automobiles.

 

“Our Congress, in its great wisdom on environmental pollution and safety on the highway, has brought the economy of the United States to its knees by bringing the automobile industry to its knees. There is simply no other way to explain the economic dilemma of the United States today. There are other factors to be sure, but the Congress of the United States has the sole responsibility for legislating features which the public does not want, and legislating costs which the public will not pay on 1975 model cars. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason – and the only reason – we have depression and inflation at the same time.”

 

“Furthermore, as I understand it, there is still legislation on the books to require by 1978 an air bag safety device that will require about $100 million of R&D and tooling for each automobile company, and more stringent emission standards that will require each automobile manufacturer to spend on the order of $300 million. You and I and everyone else who buys a car in the future, will have to pay these costs which will add hundreds of dollars more to the price of automobiles.

 

“Frankly, I almost think the Congress is wasting its time devising a fiscal policy to control inflation through budgetary control legislation. No conceivable fiscal policy can bring automobile prices down as much as other federal actions are driving costs and prices up.”

 

Packard says he does not want “a 1975 model automobile designed by the Congress, and would not buy one, even if the government gave me a tax rebate to cover the full price. I would rather use my 1972 model for a few more years, and I know I have a great deal of company around the country.”

 

Packard suggests that members of his audience could be of help by applying the concept of  “…cost effectiveness to some of the things Congress has been asking business and industry to do – and this just might be a more useful place to apply the fine analytical procedures you people are capable of providing, than on the budget issues through this new legislation.

“Another place where you can help is to reach agreement among yourselves, that where federal requirements should be placed on the private sector – and I will admit there are some places they should be – they will, at least, be consistent among all the agencies. The only way we are going to stop inflation is to improve productivity, to produce more and better products and services for every dollar we spend on wages and salaries. The only way the government will get more for the taxpayers’ dollars it spends, is to take those actions which will help the private sector become more productive. It is manifestly absurd to ask business to keep one set of books for the IRS, one set for the SEC and one for the GAO. I can assure you, whatever such requirements may accomplish, they will not help bring inflation down, nor help get the economy moving again, nor get a better value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

 

“There are many matters to be dealt with by the federal government that are as important as fiscal policy, as exercised by the congress through these new budget procedures. But fiscal policy is one of the tools that can be useful, and I would like to talk a little more about some other aspects of fiscal policy which should be kept in mind.”

 

“The longer term effect of federal fiscal policy must be kept in mind. A 1% deficit over a period of 10 or 20 years could be a considerably different problem than a one-time 1% deficit – or a 1% deficit when called for and a 1% surplus when called for, which would tend to average out over a reasonable period of time. I know it is too much to expect for the political process to come out with anything that rational, but it should be held out for consideration – at least, that one option is to have a surplus often enough to balance out the deficits over a period of several years.

 

“And so, in summary, I would like to repeat that I believe this new legislation will at least provide a mechanism for the Congress to work with the President and implement a responsible fiscal policy. That has not been possible before – at least, it has not been done. We have talked about federal fiscal and monetary policy as being the two most important tools to deal with the health of the economy. It would be a very constructive step if we could finally tailor a mutually supporting fiscal and monetary policy instead of having to rely so heavily on monetary policy alone – or monetary actions working against fiscal actions, as we have seen many times.

 

“There are some practical problems with this legislation – timing will certainly be one, as well as what in addition to how much should be in the fiscal package. There will be severe political problems – but then, what else is new?

 

“I hope, but I am not sure that what is new, is at least a comprehension that the federal budget is an important fiscal tool which, if used properly can help keep our economy strong and keep inflation down – sound federal fiscal policy can contribute to the welfare of this great country of ours. But, I want to emphasize there are many other actions taken by the federal government that affect the economy, as we have seen in our present plight. And so I hope, as you people work with your respective sponsors on the budget process, you will also work with your respective sponsors on some of these other matters I have mentioned today.

 

“The future welfare of this country requires more responsible economic policy by the Congress and by the President than we have seen in recent years. I know you people here today can have a large role in helping to bring this about. I hope you will make this your first priority.

 

“Thank you for asking me to be with you.”

 

1/20/75, Copy of printed conference announcement

1/20/75, Copy of conference program

1/20/75, Copy of typewritten program agenda

1/20/75, Copy of printed booklet containing copies of addresses made at conference

1/20/75, HP press release covering speech made by Packard

7/29/74, Letter to Packard from Elmer B. Staats, Controller General of the United States, asking if Packard would be willing to participate in their forthcoming conference

8/7/74, Copy of a letter from Packard to Elmer B. Staats, agreeing to participate in the conference

1/2/75, Letter to Packard from Elmer B. Staats giving details on the conference schedule

1/9/75, Letter to Packard from Elmer Staats giving more details on the conference

1/13/75, Copy of letter from Packard to Staats saying he will be at the conference and hopes to “provide a little stimulation for the Financial Management people”

1/20/75, Letter to Packard from Thomas P. Pike Vice-Chairman Fluor Corporation saying it was a great speech

1/21/75. Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, Oregon State Senate, complimenting Packard on his speech

1/21/75, Letter to Packard from Robert L. Peters, Jr., Paul Stafford Associates Ltd., complimenting him on his speech

1/22/75, Internal HP memo from Walt Dyke to Packard saying he had sent copies of newspaper clipping of Packard’s speech to several Oregon legislators

1/23/75, Letter to Packard from Donald C. Kull, Joint Financial Management, thanking Packard for participating in their conference

1/24/75, Copy of a letter to W. P. Dyke, GM HP McMinnville, from  Oregon State Legislator, Anthony Meeker, saying Packard’s remarks are accurate

1/24/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley B. Hackett, Hackett Bros., Inc., complimenting him on the speech

1/28/75, Letter to Packard from Barbara L. Brodeur, of Greenwich, Conn., ,complimenting Packard on his speech

1/29/75, Letter to Packard from Howard Morgens, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Proctor & Gamble Co. complimenting Packard on speech

1/29/75, Identical letters transmitting unsolicited copies of Packard’s speech to the following people:

Senator William Proxmire

Senator Edmund Muskie

Melvin Laird

Carol Crawford in Senator Packwood’s office

Senator Harry F, Byrd, Jr.

Senator Alan Cranston

Rep. Paul N. McCloskey

 

1/30/75, Letter to Packard from Henry Ford II, Chairman of the Board, Ford Motor Company, saying he appreciated Packard’s comments

2/5/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr., saying he agrees with Packard

2/4/75, Letter to Packard from Peter Morrison, son of an HP employee, congratulating him on his speech

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Edmund S. Muskie saying he is hopeful that “the new budget process will make a constructive contribution in helping Congress formulate an effective recovery program

2/20/75, Letter to Packard from T. A. Murphy Chairman, General Motors Co., agreeing with Packard’s comments

2/6/75, Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, quoting and article in TV Guide which quotes Packard

2/24/75, Copy of a letter to Walter Annenberg form Packard thanking him for his letter and sending a copy of another speech he made along the same lines

3/3/75, Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, thanking him for his letter of 2/24/75

3/21/75, Letter to Packard from Tait Trussell, American Forest Institute, asking for a copy of his speech

4/22/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Alan Cranston thanking him for sending him a copy of his speech

 

Newspaper Clippings covering Packard’s speech

1/20/75, Clipped editorial from unnamed paper – favorable

1/21/75, Clipping from Palo Alto Times

/21/75, Note on business card from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending clipping from Daily Commercial News

1/22/75, Letter to Packard from Joseph D. Matarazzo, sending clipping from Oregon Journal

1/22/75, Letter to Packard from Stanton G. Hale sending clipping from Examiner [SF?]

1/27/75,  Copy of article from Electronic News, sent by a H. Peter Meisinger

2/6/75, Clipping from Wall Street Journal – favorable article

2/11/75, Copy of page from the Congressional Record with verbatim text of speech

2/13/75, Note from Doug Chance sending editorial clipping from The Press – Democrat favorable

2/17/75, Page from Business Week magazine with article by Arnold L. Windman, which doesn’t mention Packard but writes in similar vein as Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 2 – General Speeches

 

Feb. 18, 1975 Energy – The Present and the Future, Accepting The Washington Award, Chicago, IL

 

2/18/75, 1975 – Typewritten copy of the text of Packard’s speech, all capitals and double spaced, with hand printed additions by Packard.

2/18/75, Another typewritten copy of Packard’s speech, this one single spaced and incorporating his hand printed additions

 

Packard says he is “going to talk about some of our energy and environmental problems and suggest some ways engineers might make a more effective contribution to the solution of these present and future problems, for the benefit of our society.”

 

Looking back in history Packard finds that “Engineers have had a distinguished record from the early days of recorded history in applying scientific knowledge and technology to the problems and needs of society….”

 

He gives some specific examples: “Archimedes in the third century B.C. applied engineering principles to defend Syracuse against the Romans and among his engineering accomplishments were catapults and other ‘engines of war’ for the defense of his city. ”Other examples he mentions are the pyramids of Egypt or Yucatan, the buildings, roads and viaducts of the Romans, the machines of the industrial revolution — “…the conclusion is inescapable,” he says, “– engineers have made great contributions to matters of importance to the people of their times over the many centuries.”

 

“As engineers have approached the job of applying technology for the benefit of their society, they have always had to take into account matters other than technology. Cost and the availability of materials and energy, for example, have always been the concern of engineers.”

 

“Most engineering work, however, requires a carefully considered trade-off between performance and cost. As technology becomes more complex and more risky, cost becomes an even more important issue because the cost of an engineering project often can increase much more rapidly than the value of incremental performance benefits which may result from additional expenditures.

 

“As projects become larger and of more interest to more people in the government or in the society at large who do not understand engineering problems, the engineer has frequently been constrained by conditions which make it difficult for him to do his job well – particularly in achieving an optimum balance between performance and cost, and also in terms of other considerations such as conservation of energy and materials.”

 

Packard says he had to deal with these kinds of trade-off problems when he was in the Pentagon involved with weapons systems. “These problems almost always boiled down to the situation that the opportunity to make practical trade-offs between performance and cost, and other important factors, had been taken away from the design engineer.

 

“It was common to find projects where performance requirements were defined in detail before the engineering work had been done, and there was no provision to modify them if the cost of achievement became excessive. Furthermore, the detail performance requirements were often rigidly prescribed with no provision to adjust one against the other, should the design engineering work subsequently indicate this might be desirable.”

 

He gives an example of the C-5A program. “When the design required to meet performance specification turned out to be very costly, there was no course provided under the contract but to meet the specification regardless of the cost.”

 

“To compound the problem, some of the performance specifications were not really necessary and sometimes inconsistent with each other, so that the engineering design to meet them not only increased the cost, but reduced the life and reliability of the aircraft.”

 

Packard moves on to an explanation of  “…the principles which we tried to apply to establish better engineering management procedures for developing new military weapons, so that, hopefully, the C-5A case would not be repeated in the future.”

 

Packard says the first principle is a simple one: “Developing a new weapons system is first and foremost an engineering problem, and an engineer should be put in charge.” He gives the example of Admiral Rickover who provided engineering management of the nuclear submarine.

 

“The second principle applied,” he says, “was to structure contracts so that engineers had the responsibility and authority to make these important trade-offs among performance requirements and cost and other considerations.. If this principle could be applied to the energy problem, especially where environmental considerations are involved – there would be much better solutions, both in regard to energy and the environment, as well as in regard to cost and performance of energy related equipment, whether it be automobiles or power plants.”

 

Packard states the third principle as “Establish procedures so it would be demonstrated that the engineering job had been completed before a commitment was made to full scale production of the new device.

 

“This third principle served in part to provide protection from an innate weakness of engineers, (to this audience I might say the only weakness) which is to be overly optimistic about how long a job will take and how much it will cost. This principle required , in general, the development and successful testing of a prototype model to demonstrate that the engineering was well done and complete.”

 

“…this third principle I have mentioned has been popularly called, ‘Fly before you buy.’ This phrase over-simplifies the principle, but at least expresses its main thrust.”

 

“Most engineering projects in the past have had to deal primarily with technology and economics. With growing concern about conserving energy and natural resources and protecting the environment, new dimensions have been added to many engineering projects.

 

“The matters relating to resource conservation and the environment are not very well quantified at best, and in any case, involve a third and fourth potential region of trade-off with performance and cost in many engineering projects today.

 

“I believe we have so far failed to provide a satisfactory mechanism for logical and practical trade-offs where energy and environmental considerations are involved. Arbitrary standards for air and water quality have been established, often by legislation. These fixed and arbitrary environmental standards have resulted in unnecessary costs imposed on our economy, and unnecessary constraints on product performance. In these attempts to achieve legitimate environmental goals, actions have been taken which will not only increase costs and decrease performance, but will probably not serve to achieve the environmental goals that can be achieved.”

 

To illustrate, Packard takes the example of the 1975 model automobile. “In 1970 standards were established for reducing the emission levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides from automobiles. A reasonable attempt was made to establish acceptable levels of each of these chemicals by evidence relating to effects on human health and also plant life. I believe the attempt was sincere and conscientious, but I do not believe there is yet enough data to determine with any precision what acceptable levels of these emissions should be. Among other things, emission levels which might cause air pollution harmful to health in an area of heavy traffic, like Los Angeles, must be lower than they would need to be in the countryside with very little traffic.

 

“With  little more rationale than – the lower, the better – the standards were set to achieve a level about 1/10 of the 1970 automobile emission level by the 1980s. The levels to be required in 1975 were not as low as those to be required in 1978, thus rightly giving the industry time to do the necessary engineering and tooling for production.

 

“Now we have the 1975 model automobiles on the market which meet the emission standards set for this year. These cars embody a combination of measures to reduce the undesired emissions. Some of these measures involve leaner fuel mixtures, better ignition and faster response of the automatic choking devices during warm up. Other measures involve catalytic devices and other means to take the chemicals out of the exhaust before it goes out to the atmosphere.

 

“These fixes make the 1975 model cars harder to start, make them use more fuel, make them more difficult to repair, and make them cost more. What is most troublesome – there is some evidence that these fixes used on 1975 cars to control undesired emissions are likely to deteriorate rapidly with use. Under some conditions it is possible that the devices added to the automobiles may even produce more harmful gases than the ones they are supposed to eliminate.

 

“There are several alternate solutions to this problem that appear to me to be much better than the ones now being used. Two, at least, involve designs to improve the combustion efficiency in the engine cylinder so the level of unwanted exhaust gases is reduced in the first place, and the need for further cleaning the exhaust gases is much less.

 

“I believe that there is a better solution to the automobile emission problem – a better engineering solution involving a better balance between performance, cost, energy conservation and environmental considerations, than the solution used on the 1975 cars. It is also evident to me that if more flexibility in the environmental standards is not permitted, there is very little possibility that a better engineering solution will even be pursued by the industry.

 

“We will have, as I said a few weeks ago, automobiles designed by Congress, rather than automobiles designed by engineers. If we stay on this course, it can cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, and probably will not even achieve what we can all agree should be done in improving the environment.”

 

“Packard says “A more difficult problem is involved when considerations of energy conservation and material conservation are concerned, but here too, I firmly believe good engineering management working in a free market environment will achieve the best outcome in the long run.

 

“When environmental considerations, air and water pollution, are involved in an engineering project there are other factors which do have to be considered. There is not necessarily a simple cost benefit relationship that can be quantified, and a free market may not force consideration of environmental issues over the short term.

 

The society at large is demanding better performance from business and industry in the environmental area, and because the private sector has failed to meet the environmental aspirations of the times, the government has found it necessary to step in.

 

“I believe we need to continually remind ourselves that when business and industry anticipate such problems, and take initiative on their own, there will be a better outcome than when the government has to step in.

 

“Without any doubt the automobile industry should have started many years ago to do something more about fuel efficiency and environmental emissions, and even now the more initiative the industry can take to stay ahead of governmental regulations, the better off we will all be.

 

“But the government is now involved and will continue to be involved, and the problem is now what can be done to assure the best outcome in these important matters with industry working with the government.

 

“I wish there were some way when the government is involved to simply put more engineers in charge, give them the authority to make the trade-off decisions to achieve an optimum balance among the concurrent objectives of energy conservation, environmental quality, performance, and reasonable cost. And then, I would see this challenge added – make sure the plan the engineers devise will fly before the public is asked to buy. That simple step would provide all the protection the public would need.”

 

Packard says we live in a political world, and he suggests there “…should be more engineering influence on all of these issues of energy and the environment, and performance and cost. I believe engineers will have to become more involved on the political scene.

 

“Engineers will have to speak out more effectively when they have legitimate concern about what is being done in Washington. Engineers can exert considerable influence as individuals. Engineers should talk to their senators and representatives when they believe their engineering knowledge about a problem being considered might be helpful in achieving a better legislative outcome. The men in government will welcome recommendations of engineers, for legislators are trying to find the right answers, and all too often are influenced by people who do not really understand the problem, or who have a personal axe to grind.”

 

He encourages the engineers present to work with their “…professional societies to take a more active part in helping the government find a better answer to these important issues relating to energy, present and future.”

 

“There are many other groups of people, professional and otherwise, who are working very hard to influence the course of public policy. I know of no other group of men and women, professional or otherwise, who know as much about energy as engineers. If you roll up your sleeves and get actively involved in some of the present problems relating to energy and the environment, you can and will have a very important influence on the quality of life in America and the prosperity of our country in the future.

 

“It has been a privilege for me to be with you tonight, and a great honor to receive the Washington Award. Thank you.”

 

 

2/18/75, Copy of typewritten Program Schedule

12/10/74, Letter to Packard from K. E. Gerler of the Washington Award Commission, saying Packard had been selected to receive the Washington Award for 1975

12/19/75, Letter to Packard from K. E. Gerler, saying he is pleased Packard has agreed to accept the Washington Award and giving details of the evening

1/6/75, Letter to Packard from John D. deButts, Chairman of the Board, AT&T, and recipient of the 1974 Washington Award, saying he was delighted to hear that Packard had been selected to receive the Washington Award, and saying he would not be able to attend the dinner

2/19/74, Copy of speech made by John deButts on occasion of receiving the 1974 Washington Award, and a copy of the program for that evening

1/75, Copy of a press release from The Washington Award announcing the forthcoming award to Packard

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from William R. Gerler enclosing information about the program

2/7/75, Copy of a letter of Invitation to a Private Reception at the Washington Award Dinner on Feb. 18, 1975

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from R. H. Tanner Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers inclosing an editorial printed in TV News agreeing with Packard’s comments on government regulation of the automobile industry

2/24/75, Copy of letter from Packard to R. H. Tanner thanking him for his  letter and enclosing a copy of his speech

2/24/75, Letter to Packard from  Rep.Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. thanking him for meeting with him recently and asking if it is alright to refer to points made by Packard in his speech from time to time

2/75, Copy of the printed newsletter, Scanfax, accounting the forthcoming presentation of the Washing Award to Packard

2/75, Copy of the newsletter, Midwest Engineer, announcing the forthcoming presentation of the Washington Award to Packard

2/75, Copy of the newsletter, ASCE News, with article announcing  the forthcoming presentation of the Washington Award to Packard

3/3/75, Copy of a letter to Goldwater from Packard giving his permission to use any of Packard’s comments, with or without attribution

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to K. E. Gerler thanking him for assistance provided during the trip to Chicago and sending a copy of the speech

3/3/75, Copy of a letter to John deButts from Packard sending him a copy of his speech

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Rep. Russell E. Train sending a copy of his speech about the automobile situation and adding “I am convinced we are on the wrong track with this whole problem, and I hope you will be able to do something about it.”

5/1/75, Copy of a letter to Packard from Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, taking issue with Packard’s comments

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas O. Paine General Electric Company, sending him a copy of his speech

3/7/75, Letter to Packard from Thomas O. Paine, of GE, thanking him for sending him a copy of his speech, and enclosing a copy of testimony he had given to the Joint committee on Atomic Energy of 2/5/74

3/20/75, Letter to Packard from Walker L. Cisler, Chairman of the Board, The Detroit Edison Company, congratulating him on receiving the Washington Award

Box 4, Folder 3 – General Speeches

 

March 17, 1975, Managing Hewlett-Packard for the Future

 

This speech moved to HP Management Speeches, Box 1, Folder 32

 

 

Box 4, Folder 4 – General Speeches

 

March 18, 1975,  WEMA Capitol Caucus, Washington D. C.

The audience here is made up of electronic industry people as well as members of Congress.

 

3/18/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

Packard tells the audience that he has a special interest in the WEMA organization because he was one of the two people who founded it. He says that it was called WCEMA at first, for the West Coast Electronic Manufacturers Association, and Les Hoffman of the Hoffman Electronics company, joined him in starting the association. Packard continues with the start-up story: “We started the organization because we felt that our industry on the West Coast was not receiving its fair share of the defense electronics business. A good many of the contracts were going to firms in the Midwest and the East, and we felt that some of the procurement people didn’t know we existed. We thought this new organization might be able to help in this respect.

 

“I don’t know that WCEMA achieved this objective with any success. As I recall, the business we were able to get was dependent largely on the individual efforts of our individual companies. But the organization did serve one very useful purpose. It brought a good many of the people in the industry in 1944 together, got them acquainted, and, in a sense, provided a catalyst for what has happened since.

 

“The association in the year that it was founded had 25 members, and the total annual business of those 25 members added up to 435 million, so these companies were doing a little less than a million and a half dollars each on the average. I would remind you however that those dollars were worth about three or four of today’s dollars. We now have over 700 members, representing approximately 600,000 employees who work generally in the states which you people represent. The total annual volume of business is in the neighborhood of $15 billion.”

 

“Much more important than their size, however, is the fact that the organizations represented here today are at the forefront of the electronics industry in respect to the entire world—in terms of technology, in terms of enlightened management-leadership, and also in terms of contributions these companies have made to the general welfare of the communities in which we operate. So I hope that you will pardon my pride when I talk about some of the things that we’ve done over the last thirty years. I do not believe there is any group of electronics companies anywhere in the world—not in Japan, not in Europe, certainly not in the soviet Union, and not even on the East Coast—that has turned in the kind of performance over these last thirty years as has the Western electronics industry which is represented here today.”

 

Stressing the industry’s involvement in world trade, Packard says he would like to describe HP’s activities in the international market  “because this will give you some idea of the importance of international trade to our electronics industry. I would also suggest that the same considerations apply in many other industries.”

 

According to Packard, the devaluation of the dollar has benefitted [sic] HP and the electronics industry. “One interesting thing that we have experienced is that we can now manufacture products in the United States, ship them to Germany, pay the duty and deliver them in Germany cheaper than we can manufacture them in Germany. And so this devaluation is giving us a rather significant advantage in these international markets. ”Packard makes the point that “…a great deal of our international business supports and generates jobs here at home.”

 

Non-tariff restraints are a problem in some overseas markets, and Packard says: “I am quite sure that we could sell more abroad and in turn add more jobs here at home if we could get rid of some of these non-tariff trade barriers.

 

“Our industry, as you might suspect from what I have said, strongly supported the trade bill, and we will do everything we can to help Secretary Dent in his negotiations in Geneva. The outcome of these negotiations, particularly in respect to some of these matters having to do with non-tariff restraints, can have a significant impact on our industry, and will indeed influence a number of jobs here in the U.S. which are the result of foreign trade.”

 

Saying that many WEMA companies do business with the Soviet Union, other Eastern Europe countries as well as the Peoples Republic of China, Packard says that “…many people in our industries were disappointed by the Jackson Amendment on the trade bill. I knew Senator Jackson very well when I was here in Washington. I thought very highly of him and still do. However, I do not think that he made the right judgement in adding this amendment to the trade bill. It certainly turned out that the Soviet behavior in regard to allowing Jewish emigration has not been influenced in the slightest degree by this amendment and I am sure that could have been predicted. There is no question, however, that the amendment on the trade bill has caused a reduction in our trade with the Soviet Union. We’ve seen this in the case of our own company, where we’ve had  a rather sharp reduction in our business. So I hope that you people in the Congress will see fit in the near future to find some way to take the Jackson amendment off of the trade bill because it is counter-productive. I do not think it achieves in any way the worthy purposes the good Senator had hoped to achieve.”

 

Making another point with respect to trade with the Soviet Union, Packard says, “I believe more trade and the resulting communication and personal relationships that will come about from this trade will be helpful in general to the spirit of détente. But I do not believe that either trade or détente will, in any meaningful way, eliminate the fundamental ideological conflict that exists between our two countries. I think then that we must look at this trade in the sense that we can trade with the Soviet Union, as well as the People’s Republic of China, and other Communist countries, in ways that will be mutually beneficial. But we must be careful, particularly in areas of high technology, to remember that there are national security aspects involved here and we have to keep these under careful consideration as we move ahead.”

 

Regarding Most Favored Nation status, Packard says “I do not see any reason whatsoever why we should not give the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China the Most favored Nation treatment in respect to our trade, with the exception of those issues regarding our national security. I cannot see, however, why we should give them any special concessions or terms of credit. I think it is basically wrong to ask the American taxpayer to subsidize the credit that we extend to the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China. I see no reason why they should get better terms of credit than our own industry at home, or the industries in the developed countries of Europe or Japan or other parts of the world.”

 

“So, in regard to foreign trade, the message I want to leave with you today is that foreign trade has been very important to our industry, and it will continue to be so. Foreign trade supports thousands of jobs in those states which you represent here in Washington. Some non-tariff barriers have been troublesome in that they have limited our trade, and these barriers should be eliminated to the extent they can be. We should continue to look upon foreign trade as an important and growing opportunity for our electronics industry, not only on the West Coast but throughout the entire country.”

 

Packard notes that the debate about whether or not the Soviet Union is ahead of the U.S. in technology heats up whenever R&D budgets for the Defense Department are being debated in Congress. And he says his audience may be interested in HP’s experience  in this area to give some insight into the status of technology between the two countries.

 

“Our company signed a technical exchange agreement with the Soviet Union about a year and a half ago. Since that time we have had a number of discussions with representatives of the soviet Union to try to find areas where we might be able to exchange technology on a mutually beneficial basis. We have been able to identify a number of areas in our company from which the Soviet Union would like very much to have us give them technology. So far we have been unable to find any areas of technology in the Soviet Union that would be of any benefit whatever to our company. I can assure you, we’re certainly not interested in making any one-way deals with these fellows in this matter. We may find some other ways that will provide a balance of trade for our technology, and we are continuing to pursue this matter. But I think this is a clear indication that, in the electronics industry at least, there are hardly any instances anybody has been able to find where they are ahead of us, and there are a great many technological areas where we have a very substantial lead over them.”

 

Packard adds that he doesn’t “want any of you to …not support Secretary Schlesinger’s R&D budget request this year, because it seems to me that the only safe course for our country is to continue to maintain this important technological lead we have. It is very important in terms of our national security, and it is also very important in terms of maintaining the world wide competitive advantage of our industry. I really think even more federal money to support research and development might be better medicine for our economy right at this particular time than some of these “make-work” programs that are being considered. And the easiest way to do this is to support those requests that are in the President’s budget for research and development, not only in the field of defense, but in other fields such as energy as well.”

 

Packard says he would like to cite some examples to show how the electronics industry has benefited from the “fall-out” that has come from government supported research and development.

 

“If you go back” he says, “to about the time that WEMA was founded, or more specifically to World War II, there were three very important vacuum tube developments that came out of government-supported  research and development: the klystron tube, the magnetron tube, and the travelling wave tube. These tubes were essential to the development of radar, which was necessary during our war effort, and later the travelling wave tube became an essential ingredient in the communications necessary to mount our space effort. Those devices have made possible the tremendously capable communications systems we have throughout the world today. Some of the peaceful uses of space that we are now beginning to see come into service are possible because of the very high-level communications capability that can be build with these devices. You can even relate this technology to more commonplace things like the microwave ovens some of you may have at home, which are possible again because these tubes were developed.

 

“Another area is computer technology. In the early days it was, to a large degree, Defense Department research programs and some air defense programs that nurtured the rapid development of large scale computers. They also produced a foundation for the tremendously important computer industry in the United States today. Here again, I think without any question the reason that the United States is so far ahead of everyone else in this field goes back to the important research and development activities that were supported by military funds during this period of time.”

 

At Hewlett-Packard Company, Packard sees a “great number of things that we have been able to do in developing commercial instrumentation for applications in electronics, for applications in medicine, for data products jobs in all the areas of business and industry because of the past high level of defense R&D. We’ve had this experience first hand, and I can assure you that there have been some very real benefits in terms of what you might call fallouts from this government-supported activity.”

 

However, Packard says there have been a few “disturbing” things in this area in recent years – one being the Mansfield Amendment. “I was very troubled about [this amendment] at the time that I was here in Washington, and had I known a little more about how government operated at the time I might have been more effective in preventing it from being adopted. It is a very counter-productive amendment because it stipulates that independent research and development (I R&D) should not be directed at potential commercial applications, but rather must be limited to potential military applications. If the Mansfield amendment could be eliminated it would help to nurture some of these fallouts and make the research and development dollars that the government spends go further. I would hope that some of you people might pay a little attention to that and perhaps we might get the amendment changed at some time.

 

“There is another amendment that relates to computers and I guess that is called the Brook Amendment. That amendment has made it so difficult that our company has almost given up trying to sell computers to the government. It just isn’t possible under these regulations.

 

“These are some areas where, it seems to me, we are seeing a much more vindictive attitude in governmental actions which relate to industry. It is particularly troublesome to see this come about because, as I look back over these past thirty years, we’ve had a good working relationship. The government has been tough to do business with, but I think they’ve gotten the value for the money they’ve spent and the fallouts have resulted in the tremendously impressive growth of the industry which is represented here today.”

 

Packard says he is “disappointed to see the increasing intrusion of the government into a great many of the affairs of business and industry. I suspect that you will have a chance, if you have not already been able to do so, to talk about some of these things. In saying this, I recognize very well that the private sector has not always done its job as well as it should, and I would also agree that there are probably some areas where the government must become involved if we are going to move ahead in some of the important issues that society wants taken care of.”

 

“In concluding my remarks, I would just like to say a word or two about some of the experiences I had when I was here working in the area of defense procurement. I think there may be a lesson here which could be profitably applied to some of these other matters the government is concerned about in relation to their dealings with industry.

 

“As many of you know, when I came to the Pentagon in 1969 we had a lot of problems with new weapons systems in the procurement area. As I got into these problems I found that everyone was in on the act. We had a lot of assistant secretaries and every one of them had a large staff. There were a number of committees in Congress and everybody was trying to figure out ways to put on more constraints, in terms of what they thought were ways to solve this job. We had procedures galore in this matter. As far as I could see, the only result was that the paper industry was enjoying a great period of prosperity. There were some cases where the weight of paper being produced by these procedures was about half of the weight of the equipment being produced and that seemed to be a rather unreasonable circumstance. In fact, as I looked into this situation, it turned out that very few of the people in the department had very much first-hand procurement experience. This was, of course, true of most people in the Congress and their staffs. As we studied this problem and searched for ways to find a better approach, I came to the conclusion that the best way to handle it was to get all these people out of the act, to give the responsibility to people in industry who had demonstrated a capability and know-how, to tell them what performance we wanted from the new product and then leave them alone until they got the job done. [Typical HP approach – management by objective.]

 

“This, of course, you will recognize as the essential ingredients of the prototype program. It has been characterized sometimes as a fly-before-you-buy program but that’s not the important aspect of it—the important aspect is that we were able to give a team in industry an assignment and let this team go ahead and get the job done without all of these Mickey-Mouse rules and regulations that had been required in previous procedures.

 

“In my opinion, at least, this approach has worked very well. We have, as a result of this approach, obtained two excellent lightweight fighter aircraft which could be tested in actual flight and we have been able to do this for about $100 million as far as I can determine. Under the old procedures, that first $100 million would have bought very little more than paper. I firmly believe it will be better for both government and industry to eliminate supervision in detail whenever possible. I am convinced that we will not only save a tremendous amount of money but the government will get better products and services through this process.”

 

“I think further that it also would be very helpful if we could find some way to reduce the vindictive atmosphere that is continuing to build up between the government and industry. I think we can do many of these jobs that need to be done much more effectively if we can somehow find a way to do them in a spirit of more cooperation and less of an adversary attitude. I don’t think this climate is serving the people of our country very well. I would hope that this meeting which has been sponsored by WEMA and has been attended by a good many people from government, will serve in some way to engender a little better mutual understanding of the problems we each have and I hope it will help find some ways to work together more effectively in the future. I am convinced that with the tremendously large and important and complex problems facing our country, we must find ways for the public and the private sector to work more effectively together, and I would encourage all of you to work toward that goal.”

 

4/8/75, Copy of the Congressional Record containing the text of Packard’s speech

3/18/75, Copy of the printed announcement and program for the WEMA sponsored Executive’s Capitol Caucus

3/18/75, List of Congressional Luncheon Guests

12/10/74, Internal HP memo from Jack Beckett to Dave Packard telling him of the scheduled WEMA  Capitol Caucus

1/3/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland of WEMA, inviting him to speak at the WEMA Caucus

1/20/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Earl Wantland saying he will be unable to attend the Caucus on March 19

2/14/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland saying the Caucus has been rescheduled to March 18

2/14/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Earl Wantland saying he will be able to come to the Caucus on March 18, and asking for any suggestions he may have on topics for his speech

3/11/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland giving some suggestions for topics for Packard’s speech

3/26/75, Letter to Margaret Paull from Walter Mathews of WEMA enclosing two copies of a transcription of Packard’s speech and asking for any changes Packard would like to make

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Paul Fannin thanking Packard for his comments on the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Sen. Fannin gives his reasons for voting against the Act.

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Vance Hartke thanking him for his telegram with comments

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from William D. Happ thanking him for his stand regarding computer procurement as reported in the Electronic News

4/2/75, Letter to Packard from Leonard F. Herzog, Ph.D., President Nuclide Corp. thanking for his comments as quoted in Electronic News

4/2/75, Letter to Packard from Glen J. Anderson, President. W. A. Brown Components, Inc., thanking him for his comments at the WEMA Caucus

4/3/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland thanking him for speaking at their Caucus. He says he was sorry that the Congressional attendance was “diluted” by a roll call, but they will see that the full text is published in the Congressional Record

4/7/75, Letter to Packard from Al Miller who identifies himself as a stockholder. He says that while Packard’s views as expressed at the WEMA Caucus on difficulties with dealing with the government have  “some validity,” other manufacturers have been able to sell computers to the government. Mr. Miller says “A portion of the blame for H-P’s failure in this marketplace should be shouldered by your corporation.”

4/7/75, Copy of an article in the Northern California Electronic News covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 5 – General Speeches

 

April 8-9, 1975, Colloquium on Answers to Inflation and Recession: Economic Policies for a Modern Society. Packard acted as the general Chairman.

 

4/8/74, Text of Packard’s speech with many handwritten additions by Packard

 

Referring to the recently passed tax measure, Packard says “on the subject of fiscal policy there is not much left to discuss except whether the FY 1976 deficit will be $60 billion or $100 billion.”

 

“There is one very good thing about having this meeting now,” he says. “Those of us who are not professionals in the field will be more comfortable in expressing our views on what we think are the answers to inflation and recession. That is because, present company excepted, the professions have not been very good recently at agreeing on the answers.

 

“You will recall the main concern early last fall was double digit inflation. I heard a projection last October of nine million cars for the 1975 model. By the end of November the developing recession became the main issue and the country was suffering from inflation and recession at the same time. The professionals not only were unable to agree on the answers, they could not even agree on what was the question.”

 

Saying that double digit inflation has largely corrected itself – although not yet low enough – Packard sees “…the concern now [as] how to avoid double digit unemployment. It seems to me,” he says, “that there is a very great danger of overreacting—in my view, that is what the Congress has already done with the tax bill which was passed last month. Extreme care needs to be taken to avoid actions aimed at bringing the recession under control which may make inflation worse, and vice versa.”

 

“One of the great difficulties with the issues we are here to discuss, the issues of inflation and recession, is whether they should be addressed in terms of alleviating the symptoms or curing the disease. Many, if not most, agree it would be best to do both, but there the agreement seems to stop.

 

“I remember in particular last year when inflation was the problem of concern. I read several articles by eminent economists who discussed the problem only in terms of what to do to alleviate the human suffering it caused and completely ignored the question of how to reduce or eliminate inflation in the future.”

 

Packard says it would “…certainly [be] desirable to help those people who are hurt most.” At the same time,” he says, “I would conclude that the worst of all possible results would be to take actions which would make a high rate of inflation a permanent feature of the economy.”

 

Packard feels that inflation “…is so damaging to the long term welfare of people, especially those at lower levels of income and those who have strived [sic] for a lifetime to achieve a measure of economic security through frugality and saving, that I believe the cure of inflation should have the highest of all priorities. The damage of inflation can be both devastating and permanent in eroding an individual’s material status. Recession, on the other hand, unless it becomes a permanent state of the economy is likely to have a more temporary effect in the economic pain it produces.”

 

“We have [at this conference] several papers on fiscal policy and closely related issues. I have expressed the opinion on several occasions in the recent past that the federal government has been unable to implement a responsible fiscal policy even if it were possible to agree on what a responsible fiscal policy might be. Legislation was passed last year to establish procedures with which the congress could consider, and hopefully agree upon, the proper fiscal policy in terms of total federal spending and establish the appropriate deficit or surplus.

 

Packard believes this legislation was a step in the right direction, but he says “…the behavior of the Congress this spring on these economic issues, to say the least, does not give much encouragement that this legislation can ever be made to work.

 

“The behavior of the Congress has not been at all encouraging to those of us who believe fiscal policy should be used as an instrument to optimize the economy in terms of high employment, high output of goods and services and a low rate of inflation. A good many people on the hill were thinking about something else this spring. Some were thinking about redistributing the wealth without trying to maximize the productivity of the economy at the same time.

 

“Many were thinking about their own pet projects and all were thinking about next year’s election.”

 

Packard says he feels past “…discussions of important economic problems have centered too much on fiscal and monetary policy.” He believes “…there are two other very important factors that have been at work in the economy. One is a series of unusual events that have occurred in recent years—unusual in the sense they have not happened before and are not likely to happen again in the near future at least. The other is a number of government mandated cost increases and other actions which reduce productivity and have had a substantial effect on both inflation and recession.

 

“The first unusual event I want to mention is the devaluation of the dollar in respect to many of the free world currencies, and decoupling the world monetary system from gold, in the summer of 1971.

 

“The dollar devaluation was a highly inflationary action for it increased the cost of a great many products and materials imported into the United States. It also reduced the cost of products and materials produced in the United States and sold in major foreign markets.

 

“Decoupling also caused a very large increase in the world’s money supply as dollars were bought in excessive amounts with other currencies. This dollar devaluation had both fiscal and monetary effects on the economy of the free world

 

“The devaluation was not an isolated, spontaneous event in one sense, for it was caused by a long period of bad fiscal policy in the United States. Our country had carried both the economic burden and the military burden of the free world for too long. The value of the dollar had in fact depreciated and devaluation had to come sometime soon.

 

“Some people suggested devaluation might cause a small increase in inflation – a percent or so. This was in fact a major event and had a large influence on the inflation which began to develop in 1972.

 

“The dollar devaluation was an unusual event in that it is not likely to be repeated unless we persist in following bad fiscal policy. On the other hand, it would take a most rigorous course of fiscal restraint to restore the damage that has been done and I would think that impossible. We have experienced an inflationary increase in costs and prices that cannot, as a practical matter, be reversed.

 

“A second unusual event was a serious shortfall in food production due to adverse weather worldwide. This caused sharp increases in U.S. farm prices. This is likely to happen again from time to time and it would be useful to carry some insurance against a repetition—but that is largely a matter of farm policy. I include it as a subject you may want to consider at some point in the meeting today and tomorrow.

 

“The four-fold increase in the price of international oil was another major, unusual event that had a very inflationary impact on the entire free world economy.” Packard says he thinks another four-fold increase in the price of oil is “hardly possible.”

 

“I believe the double digit inflation we experienced in 1974 became double digit inflation primarily because of these several unusual events. I do not believe either fiscal or monetary policy during this period was a major factor in the highly stepped up rate of inflation. Fiscal actions were taken to improve the economy for the 1972 election just as fiscal actions will be taken this year to improve the economy for the 1976 election year. These kinds of actions add fuel to inflation and will probably help the recession, but they are not major influences in comparison to these other factors I have mentioned.

 

“Government mandated price increases have also been a major factor in causing both inflation and recession during the past several years. Murray L. Weidenbaum has recently published a paper describing how a number of government-dictated requirements placed on business and industry have increased costs and reduced productivity. These include cost increases to meet environmental standards, which at least have a worthy purpose. They also include cost increases for reporting and just plain unnecessary paperwork.”

 

Packard describes the automotive industry as a “special problem.”  He says “Early last fall, federal requirements increased the cost of 1975  model automobiles by about 10% and mandated features that  the public did not want. That, in my view, is the main reason an inflationary economy at that time turned into a recession economy by November.”

 

“U.S. unemployment increased by 1,700,000 from November, 1973 to November, 1974. At least 40% of this increase was in the automobile and related industries – with some 600,000 men and women out of work. The number increased to well over 700,000 by February of this year. I do not see how we are going to get out of our recession without a recovery in this industry.

 

“And, if you add to the automobile problem those delays in the construction of new power plants and other major capital projects caused by increased regulation and involvement at all levels of government—local, state and federal—I believe we have without any question a recession mandated by government.

 

“I hope you will discuss this aspect of the problem today and tomorrow. I for one do not believe fiscal and monetary policy have much to do with the answers to inflation and recession in the present environment. I might be wrong, of course, but I hope you will talk about these matters in your meetings.

 

“In conclusion, I would like to suggest that the discussions at these meetings include, whenever possible, an exchange of views with the people in the audience. We have a number of outstanding participants and many excellent papers to be presented. The main purpose of my comments is to suggest we talk about some things other than fiscal and monetary policy, and to encourage an open discussion both in terms of the subjects to be considered and in terms of s much individual participation as possible.”

 

4/8-9/75, Printed copy of the program for the Colloquium.

4/8-9/75 Copy of typewritten list of preliminary acceptances

8/5/74, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers of The Conference Board, thanking him for agreeing to participate in their conference

9/5/74,  Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers giving details on the conference

10/7/74, Letter to Packard from Alexander B. Trowbridge of The Conference Board, telling him that the conference has been rescheduled from November, 1974, to April, 1975

10/17/74, Letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, expressing the hope that Packard will be able to participate in April, 1975

10/21/74, Copy of a letter from Packard to A. B. Trowbridge agreeing to participate in April, 1975

1/27/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley R. Reber of The Conference board,  enclosing a copy of the tentative agenda for the April conference, and asking for any suggestions

2/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Stanley Reber, suggesting the addition of one topic on the agenda: “the subject of government actions that impinge on our economy apart from conventional monetary and fiscal policy. He encloses a copy of a recent speech he made on the subject.

2/5/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley Reber thanking him for his suggestion and saying that they intend to address the subject in one of the sessions, as well as Packard including it in his remarks

2/10/75, Copy of a letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, giving up to date information on the conference

2/14/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to A. B. Trowbridge, saying he has developed a conflict for the evening of April 8 as he has to be in New York to receive an award from the IEEE. He says he will be at the conference until about 4PM on the 8^th and return for the full day of April 9.

3/7/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers, giving some changes in the program

3/13/73, Letter to Packard from John G. Worssam, of The Conference Board, enclosing an up to date list of attendees

3/21/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to John G. Worssam, giving his own schedule and saying he will send a copy of his remarks in advance of the conference

3/26/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers, giving up to date information on conference activities

4/14/75, Letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, thanking him for participating in the conference

4/15/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers thanking him for his “very effective participation” in the conference

 

Background material:

12/8/74, Copy of a news clipping titled “Impact is Wide When Detroit goes Flat”

4/14/75, Page from Business Week magazine giving business statistics

2/75, Copy of typewritten sheet listing employment statistics in automobile industry

Undated copy of a speech by James Tobin, titled: “Monetary Policy, Inflation, and Unemployment

Copies of several charts indicating fiscal trends

 

 

Box 4, Folder 6 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1975, Statement Before the Production and Stabilization  Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U. S. House of Representatives, On Cost Accounting Standard No. 409 – Depreciation of Tangible Assets

 

5/1/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s Statement

 

Packard gives his views recommending some changes to Part 409 Cost Accounting Standard Depreciation of Tangible Capital Assets. He stresses the use of  “tried and  established commercial business practices, rather requiring companies who wish to do business with the government to adopt new and expensive procedures.

 

Packard sums up his views as follows:

 

“The application of proposed Part 409 would result in the government paying a lower share of the cost of our capital equipment than our commercial customers, and as I have already demonstrated, lower than the replacement cost of our capital equipment.

 

“What the Board is asking in the application of proposed Part 409 is that we contribute a share of our company’s capital for the privilege of doing business with the government. I think this is wrong.

 

“This is not a problem at all of social goals as some have implied; this is strictly a problem of good old fashioned ‘hard-nosed’ business practice.

 

”Furthermore, under the proposed Part 409 to accomplish this result, companies will be asked to go through a lengthy and costly procedure to recalculate the useful life of each piece of equipment if they want to continue to do business with the government. This is neither fair or good cost accounting, nor good business practice.

 

“This is not a very serious matter for our company, for  our negotiated defense prime contracts are less than 5% of our total business and, on the average, we have been unable even under the existing rules to make a profit on the total of this business. We can keep two sets of books as has been suggested, add some people to handle the proposed procedures and it will, as I have already indicated, result in a lower level of depreciation on negotiated defense contracts. We can either go along or simply take on no more negotiated contracts subject to cost accounting standards; I have not decided which, but neither our company nor the government will benefit, whichever course we decide to follow.

 

“I am most troubled, not because of the dilemma this causes our company, but because this is a step in the wrong direction as far as federal procurement is concerned. I believe the adoption of Part 409 in its present form will do much to discredit the accounting standards program which, if it is developed properly, should serve to improve the efficiency and lower the real cost of government procurement.

 

“I hope the Board will modify the proposed Part 409 standard to make it consistent with established industry practices before it is adopted. The following changes are called for:

 

 

1. “Abandon the concept of requiring everyone doing business with the government to redetermine the service lives of his capital equipment to establish new cost accounting periods. Allow the use of the procedures now in established practice under IRS rules to determined the lives of equipment for depreciation.
2. “Accept the use of accelerated depreciation; especially when it is used by a company in that part of its business which is of the same nature as the business it does for the government.
3. “Provide for some flexibility for dealing with cases where accelerated depreciation might result in an inordinate cost against a particular contract.
4. “Above all, do not require a whole new set of rules and procedures for dealing with this problem. That is what Part 409 seems to do.
5. “Make both the intent and the requirement of Part 409 clear and concise so that there need be no uncertainty on the part of industry or government as to how to proceed.

 

“Let me conclude by again saying I am in favor of establishing good cost accounting standards. They should not be established so they discourage competent and responsible companies from doing business with the government and penalizing them if they do.”

 

 

 

Box 4, Folder 7 – General Speeches

 

September 15, 1975, Remarks at Paris Conference and Luncheon

 

It is not clear who Packard’s audience is, probably government and business people. He mentions that he and Bill Hewlett have been in France to open HP’s new plant in Grenoble, and HP will have an exhibit at the “SICOB” exposition.

 

9//15/75, Copy of a draft of remarks made by Packard

 

Packard says he plans to divide his remarks into three areas: a brief overview of HP’s world wide operations, operations in France, and lastly, a review of the management philosophy that “has guided our company over the 36 years of its growth and development.”

 

“First, a look at HP worldwide.”  Packard explains that HP is a “large, diversified company with a broad array of products and services.” He says  the company currently manufacturers some 3000 products which are sold in 175 countries, has 30 manufacturing plants and employs more than 29,000 people.

 

Packard emphasizes that HP is not a conglomerate, “Nor do we have any desire to be [one]. We are in the business of electronic measurement and computation; this is the business we know best, the business in which we feel comfortable and in which we intend to continue to concentrate our efforts.”

 

Commenting on activities in France, Packard says Hewlett-Packard France was first established in January 1964. “In that year…our total sales in France amounted to 20 million francs. In 1974 they amounted to 190 million francs, nearly a ten-fold increase in ten years.”

 

“There are now about 400 people in the company and, in addition to its headquarters in Orsay, the company has sales and service offices in six cities throughout the country.”

 

Packard tells of the official opening a few days ago of the new plant in Grenoble, a plant with 200 employees. He says they were attracted to Grenoble  due to the availability of a skilled work force, first rate educational institutions, and the physical attractiveness of the area.

 

Packard moves on to describe some of the principal elements of HP management philosophy, He says HP is not a tightly-controlled, highly centralized organization. “Our basic operating unit,” he says, “is the division, and each division…is a highly autonomous unit that operates, in many ways, like a small company.” He mentions the research and development staff at Grenoble, saying their first task will be to develop data entry terminals for HP’s entire line of computers.

 

“Another fundamental element in our management philosophy is our concern for people – not as groups but as individuals. Hewlett-Packard has been built around the individual, the personal dignity of each, and the recognition of personal achievements….We have some basic goals and objectives that are well understood throughout the corporation, and we allow the individual great freedom of action in working within these objectives.

 

“One other element of our philosophy,” Packard says, “…has to do with our relationships with the communities in which we operate. Each individual has an obligation to the a good citizen of his community. Likewise, each corporation has an obligation to be a good citizen of its community….I can assure you, speaking for all of our people in France, that we will do our best to be an economic, intellectual and social asset to Grenoble and to your great nation as well.”

 

“In closing, may I express our deep appreciation for the interest and cooperation we have received in establishing our operations in France and becoming an integral part of the French community. Help has come from many organizations and individuals, including several in this room We are honored and grateful to be here, and we look forward to a long and happy relationship.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 8 – General Speeches

 

December 9, 1975, Eighteenth Annual Awards Dinner, The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame, New York, N.Y.

Packard was selected by the National Football Foundation to receive their Gold Medal Award at their 1975 annual awards banquet. Packard gave this speech upon receiving the award.

 

12/9/75, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks with handwritten additions by him

 

Saying that he is honored to receive this award, Packard adds that he is pleased to be “among the company of so many men of considerable achievement and distinction.”

 

Packard says he wants to “express my gratitude for having had the good fortune to participate in the great game of football. That participation began on the sandlots of Pueblo, Colorado, in 1925, some fifty years ago, and continued through my senior year at Stanford. Every year of these nine years I was out on the football field in the fall, and although I was never able to come up to my aspirations, I am firmly convinced that football had a profound influence on the course of my life and what success I may have achieved in these intervening years.”

 

Packard says that, although he studied hard at school, he realizes that he “learned some of the most important lessons for success on the football field.

 

“One of these lessons is the importance of hard work. A young man can read about the virtues of hard work in the classroom, but it is on the football field were one really begins to appreciate what hard work can do. And the lesson is the same whether one is trying to make All-American, make the first team, or make the traveling squad. It takes ability, of course, but success is not possible in football without hard work.”

 

He says that another lesson is learning “the importance of knowledge. We think of the class room as the place where a young man acquires knowledge, and that is true. But knowledge is equally important on the football field. No football player – whether in high school, college, or the professional ranks – can play up to his ability unless he knows as much as possible about the game, about his own team and his opponent, and about what is expected of him.

 

“Football is a team game,” he says, “and so is the game of life. Teamwork means learning to work with the other fellow, to know that you can depend on him and that he can depend on you. It requires discipline and unselfishness. Here, again, a young man can read and talk about teamwork in the classroom. On the football field teamwork becomes an absolutely essential ingredient for success, just as team work is an essential ingredient for success in the game of life.

 

“And, playing football teaches you very quickly it is not who you are, but what you are that counts. It makes not the slightest difference whether you live across the tracks or in the mansion on the hill when you are out there on the football field.

 

Packard says it is apparent that “I consider my participation in football as having been an immensely valuable part of my education.” And he says that he feels certain  those in the audience who have participated in football would agree with him.

 

“I hope you will agree with me, too, when I say that football in America is more important in these troubled times than ever before, because it is an institution that preserves and transmits from generation to generation some of the strengths of individual character that have made our country the greatest country in the world.

 

“A dedication to hard work, a striving for knowledge, a commitment to teamwork, and a belief that success depends not on who you are, but what you are. These are the lessons of football, and these are the ingredients of personal character that have been the elements of the American dream.

 

“But, all of these virtues are under attack today. All too many people today believe the world owes them a living. They see little merit in hard work, or, for that matter, in any work at all.

 

“Going through school, for many young people, is not for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For all too many school is merely a place to mark time until someone hands them a diploma they don’t deserve or don’t really seek. For all too many, young and old, what’s in it for me has become the theme of the day, rather than what can I do to help my team win.

 

“And , in the minds of all too many people, influence rather than performance is thought to be the road to success.

 

“You and I know our country will not remain the greatest nation in the world if these troublesome trends continue. You and I know that the fundamental strengths of our American society – freedom, opportunity and self-realization – will surely crumble if we become wards of the state instead of master of our own destiny.

 

“It is entirely fitting and proper, then, that we honor the game of football tonight. It is a great game, one that is interwoven into the fabric of America. Football is a game that has done much to develop and preserve those qualities of mind and spirit and body that have been so important in keeping our nation free and strong through the turbulent decades of the twentieth century. And, fortunately football is continuing to develop year after year these important qualities of mind and spirit and body in thousands of young men across this great country of ours. I am confident that through continuous recommitment to the game – and our reaffirmation of its inherent virtues – this game of football will continue to help keep America free and strong through the remaining decades of this century and beyond.

 

“The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame is doing an important service in holding these annual events to honor the game of football.

 

“Let me express my deep appreciation for this honor you have given me and for the privilege of participating in this great program.”

 

12/9/75, Several 3×5” cards with Packard’s notes on them which appear to be some ideas he was putting together for his remarks

12/9/75, Copy of the typewritten program for the dinner, and printed brochure with biographies of those being honored

6/11/75, Typewritten note [although not addressed, it is obvious it is to Packard from his secretary, Margaret Paull]. The note says a Mr. Draddy called to say they would like to present Packard with the Gold Medal Award, and would like to know if Packard is willing to accept it. A copy of the previous year’s award dinner publication is attached.

6/24/75, A copy of a handwritten letter from “Bones” Hamilton to James McDowell of the Football Foundation in which he congratulates them on their choice of Packard for the 1975 award. Mr. Hamilton says he knew Packard at Stanford and says he was very well liked there. On the back of this copy, which he sends to Packard, he has penned a note to Packard congratulating him and saying he will see him at the banquet.

7/2/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bones Hamilton, in which he says “I want you to know I feel very humble about this because I think it should have come to one of you fellows, who really were good football players. Nevertheless, I will do my best to represent the wonderful fellows I had the honor of being associated with on the team at Stanford in 1933.”

6/26/75, Letter to Packard from Bob Grayson, a fellow Stanford football player,  offering his congratulations

7/2/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Grayson, also saying he thinks someone from the ranks of the “good” players would be more appropriate

7/2/75, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell, Executive Director of the Football Foundation, congratulating Packard on being selected for the award. He says Packard will be joining “an illustrious group, including five president of the United States.” He adds that he expects Stanford will be well represented at the dinner.

7/3/75, Note to Margaret Paull from Dave Kirby saying photos and a bio have been sent

7/15/75, Copy of a note from Packard to Dave Kirby saying he doesn’t want to ask any of “our people” to go to the [football] affair unless they would like to do so. He suggest Kirby “discretely” ask around but he makes it clear he does not want “to push the issue.”

7/18/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell, Jr. talking about dates for the award dinner

8/20/75, Copy of a letter from James McDowell to Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, saying Packard cannot make the planned date in October, but looks forward to seeing Father Hesburgh in New York in December

8/27/75, Copy of a letter from James McDowell to Robert Reynolds thanking him for a donation. He adds that he has learned that the Stanford Board of Trustees is meeting the same day as the award dinner and none will be able to attend. He says the Athletic Director will attend as will others. He also says they have over 1250 reservations to date.

10/30/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell with some information about the award dinner

11/11/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to James McDowell saying he will have copies of his speech ready a week ahead of time and “will be delighted to keep it down to not more than ten minutes.”

11/3/75, Letter to Packard from O. C. Carmichael, Jr., offering his congratulations

11/5/75, Letter to Packard from J. E. Sterling of Stanford, offering his congratulations

11/26/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell with event details

11/26/75, Copy of a letter to James McDowell from Margaret Paull sending a copy of Packard’s speech

Early Dec., 1975, Handwritten letter on The National Football Foundation stationary, to Packard from Chet LaRoche offering congratulations

12/10/75, Handwritten letter to Packard from Thomas H. Martzloff saying “All of us at Table 14 were mighty proud of you!”

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from T. Kong Lee, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Lincoln University, offering congratulations

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell thanking Packard for participating in the evening.

6/20/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli, President of the Northern California Chapter of the Football Foundation inviting Packard to their annual dinner in San Francisco, Dec. 29^th

6/27/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli saying he will mark the date on his calendar

9/19/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred Cinelli confirming the 12/29 date and enclosing a copy of last year’s program, and asking if he would say a few words

9/25/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli saying he will be pleased to join them on the 29^th of December and to say a few words

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred C. Cinelli, reminding him of the Annual Awards Dinner on December 29 in San Francisco and saying he will see him there

12/30/75, Letter to Packard from A. G. Cinelli expressing appreciation for participation in their program

12/?/75, Handwritten note to Packard from Arthur R. Motley, Chairman of the Board of Parade magazine, saying “NICE!”

 

12/15/75, Letter to Packard from Joseph M. Pettit, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, congratulating him on the award, and also saying how pleased he is that Dave and Bill are making the new engineering building at Stanford, dedicated to Fred Terman, possible

12/15/75, Letter to Packard from Jerome H. Holland offering congratulations

12/12/75, Letter to Packard from Glenn A. Olds of Kent State University. He recalls meeting Packard at the Pentagon and offers his congratulations

12/17/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to President Olds of Kent State, thanking him for his note and adding that he [Packard] hopes  he would agree that the general climate has improved at most college campuses

12/17/75, Letter to Packard from George M. Mardikian offering congratulations

1/7/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Mardikian thanking him for his note

12/12/75,  Telegram from Bill and Bobbie Bigler congratulating Packard on the award

1/9/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to the Biglers thanking them for the telegram

1/12/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Warnecke asking for a copy of Packard’s remarks. He encloses a newspaper clipping covering the award event.

1/7/76, Letter to Packard from Thomas F. Gilbane congratulating Packard on the award

1/19/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas Gilbane thanking him for his letter

1/30/76, Note to Packard from Tiny Yewell congratulating him on the award

2/17/76, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell of the Football Foundation enclosing several copies of their publication covering the event

12/?/75, Newspaper clipping, paper not named. It tells of the forthcoming award to Packard and gives some biographical data on his athletic career at Stanford.

The article [written by Art Rosenbaum] says: “Packard was 6 feet 5 inches….He was BIG, but he was also awkward. He had another problem; he was in pursuit of a Phi Beta Kappa key in engineering.

 

“Packard was a hurdler, long jumper and discus thrower on the track team. He was a forward on the basketball team and then coach John Bunn almost cried when Packard stepped out.

 

“He had talked his school program over with Coach Bunn [who told him he should concentrate on one sport]. Packard…chose football.

 

“His football career was spent (90 percent of it) on the bench. “I don’t regret it,” he said, it was enjoyable being a part of those great Rose Bowl teams.”

12/10/75, Clipping from the Palo Alto times covering the award event

12/10/75, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering the award event

 

12/29/75, Printed program for the 12/29/75 awards Dinner by the Northern California Chapter of the National Football Foundation

12/10/74, Copy of printed booklet showing the honorees at the Seventeenth Annual Awards Dinner of the Foundation

11/25/33, Copy of the printed program of the 1933 Cal-Stanford football game

Box 1, Folder 33 – HP Management

March, 1976, Notes on remarks to Second Executive Seminar, Palo Alto

3/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech. Since this is very similar to the above speech made to the fdirst Executive Seminar  on March 17, 1975 it has not been included here again.

Box 4, Folder 2 – General Speeches

1/2/76, Letter to Packard from William R. Gerler, inviting Packard to the presentation of the Washington Award for 1976, to be made to Professor Ralph B. Peck

1/7/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to William R. Gerler saying it will not be possible for him to attend the dinner for Mr. Peck

2/16/76, copy of a telegram to Prof. Ralph B. Peck congratulating him for being selected to receive the Washington Award

2/28/76, Letter to Packard from Prof. Peck thanking him for the above telegram

12/15/76, Letter from William R. Gerler to Packard inviting him to the presentation of the 1977 Washington Award being made to Michael Tenenbaum, President of Inland Steel Co.

Box 4, Folder 8 – General Speeches

1/9/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to the Biglers thanking them for the telegram

1/12/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Warnecke asking for a copy of Packard’s remarks. He encloses a newspaper clipping covering the award event.

1/7/76, Letter to Packard from Thomas F. Gilbane congratulating Packard on the award

1/19/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas Gilbane thanking him for his letter

1/30/76, Note to Packard from Tiny Yewell congratulating him on the award

2/17/76, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell of the Football Foundation enclosing several copies of their publication covering the event

Box 4, Folder 9 – General Speeches

 

1976-1979, Separate folder – The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame, Various letters over this period, mostly invitations to Packard to attend annual affairs, most of which he declined. The contents of this folder are listed below.

 

4/2/76, Letter to Packard from Stan Gray of the Foundation’s Los Angeles Chapter inviting Mr. and Mrs. Packard to and awards dinner for local high school student athletes. A penciled note written thereon says “called regrets.”

8/13/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy, Chairman of the Foundation Board, inviting him to the “official ground-breaking ceremony of the college Football Hall of Fame at Kings Island family entertainment center. Handwritten note thereon says “Returned card, no.”

10/6/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy inviting Packard to “join us once again as a Dais Guest of Honor at the Annual Awards Dinner on December 7, 1976…” Attached is a copy of a check from Packard to the Foundation for $250.

10/29/76, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli of the Northern California Chapter, inviting Packard to attend the Seventeenth Annual Awards Dinner to be held in San Francisco of December 13^th. A handwritten note on the letter says “No.” A copy of the program for the Sixteenth Annual Awards Dinner is attached.

Box 4, Folder 10 – General Speeches

 

February 24, 1976, Comments on the Conduct of Hewlett-Packard’s International Business, at annual stockholder’s meeting

 

2/24/76, Copy of printed pamphlet containing a transcript of Packard’s comments at the stockholders meeting.

 

Packard says that 1975 was the first year then HP’s international orders  exceeded domestic orders. He says products are sold in 141 different countries, and in 30 of these HP has its own sales organization. In other  countries he explains that we sell through independent sales representatives or distributors.

 

Packard says that ”Because there has been a great deal of news about bribes, pay-offs, kickbacks, and illegal political contributions by American companies operating overseas, I thought it appropriate to inform our stockholders about Hewlett-Packard policy in these matters.

 

“The Hewlett-Packard Company,” he says, “believes that bribes, pay-offs, kickbacks and illegal political contributions have no place in the conduct of our business, whether at home or abroad. Over the years we have emphasized this policy in our management meetings and in meetings and discussions with our sales and marketing people. I believe we have made it abundantly clear to all of our people that under no circumstances will we

make an illegal payment or even a questionable payment to anyone to obtain an order. I believe all of our people fully understand that if such a payment is requested to obtain an order, the only choice we have is to refuse the order.”

 

Packard points that the company has asked both internal and external auditors of look for any evidence of violations of this policy and report any questionable items to the office of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

Packard also discusses Arab boycotts. “These are restrictive trade practices or boycotts imposed by Arab nations against Israel or against nations or organizations considered friendly to Israel. The question has been asked of many American corporations as to whether they participate in, or cooperate with any such boycotts. I would like to describe Hewlett-Packard’s policy and position on this matter.”

 

“Sales to Israel and Arab customers, as in every nation in which we do business, are conducted in strict compliance with the United States laws and regulations, the principal regulatory agency being the U.S. Department of Commerce. In addition, in every country in which we do business, it is our policy to comply with all local regulations and customs….Should a situation arise in which the customs and business practices in a certain country appear to be in conflict with U.S. export regulations, or with Hewlett-Packard’s self-imposed standards of ethical business conduct, we would not hesitate to discontinue our sales activity in that country.

 

“Our company is not a political organization. It is a business institution, one that believes that free trade among nations is in the best interest of our country and our stockholders. As a manifestation of this philosophy, we are unalterably opposed in principle to any boycott. We will refuse any requests made to Hewlett-Packard, either to the parent company or a subsidiary, that we participate in any boycott.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 11 – General Speeches

 

May 11, 1976, The Vermilye Award, The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA

 

5/11/76, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says that he and Bill Hewlett are “delighted to be here tonight, and to receive this most distinguished award. I can assure you,” he says, “it gives us a feeling of both pride and humility to be honored by this prestigious organization.

 

Talking a bit about the 152 year history of the Franklin Institute, Packard says he would like “to congratulate all of those associated with the Institute for the honor they recently received when the United States Congress designated this Hall as a National Memorial to Benjamin Franklin….The Institute is a living tribute to the ideals and aspirations of its namesake, and has steadfastly upheld the finest traditions of study and innovation – two traits so closely associated with Benjamin Franklin.

 

“Franklin,” Packard says, “was a self-taught innovator of magnificent proportion, ever faithful to his belief that ‘To cease to think is but little different from ceasing to be’….The federal system that he helped design incorporated this basic concept, and this greatly encouraged individual initiative and inventiveness.”

 

“Almost without exception, technical innovation has been more prolific and more productive in the United States than in any other country. In the early years when the country was largely rural, the term ‘Yankee ingenuity’ was coined to express this unusual ability that seemed so characteristic of America.

 

“In these last four decades since World War II, this early tradition has been carried forward and technical innovation in the field of electronics has kept the United States far ahead of every other country in the world. This is also true of aviation, space activity, and many, many other fields, particularly those derived from advanced technology.

 

“Tonight I want to speculate with you as to how this favorable environment for technical innovation has developed here in our country and to express some concern as to whether it will continue to survive in the future.”

 

Acknowledging that technical innovation depends on basic research Packard says “the United States has [not] had any special monopoly on scientific knowledge.” He points out that basic research has flourished in other countries such as the Soviet Union, Japan and Europe, yet “There have been only a limited number of important new developments in electronics made in either Europe or Japan [or the Soviet Union] since World War II.”

 

“The priceless ingredient we have had here in our country that has made technical innovation so productive is the opportunity for the individual entrepreneur. This is, of course, the opportunity Bill Hewlett and I had back in the 1930s. Thousands of new businesses have been started and hundreds of thousands of new products have been  brought to the American people because the United States has been a nation of individual entrepreneurs. The American farmer is working for himself. It is his land, his livestock, his crops. When the American farmer produces a better crop by applying new technology he is the one who personally benefits. The Soviet farmer is not working for himself – he is working for the State. He is, in fact, encouraged by the State to apply new technology, but he has no real incentive to do so. It is not his land, not his livestock, not his crops.

 

“In a very real since Bill Hewlett and I have been working for ourselves since 1939 – something that could not have been done at all in the Soviet Union. It would have been more difficult in Europe and Japan. We have also tried to structure the management of our company to preserve a large measure of individual freedom for the scientists and engineers who work with us in our company.

 

“Technical innovation in the United States has flourished these past two centuries primarily because we have had a very large measure of personal freedom. There has been relatively little erosion of  personal freedom in the economic area until very recently. Unfortunately, since the late 1960s the situation has been deteriorating very rapidly.

 

“A good example is the San Francisco Peninsula, which has been a spawning ground for electronic companies since the 1920s. In the 1960s many new firms were being formed there in semi-conductor and computer related fields -–as many as twenty or thirty new businesses a year. Since 1971 this important and traditional spawning ground for new high technology enterprises has dried up and very few new companies are now being started.

 

“Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, held a hearing in Palo Alto just a few weeks ago to determine the reason why so few companies have been started on the Peninsula in the past five years. She learned the problem was not lack of research, but rather government sponsored disincentives to new business. The Tax Reform Law of 1969 closed off capital formation in this area. New regulations, she was told, from the Internal Revenue Service, the Security Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other agencies have made liquidity extremely difficult and thus greatly reduced the opportunity for venture capital.

 

“Some of the new accounting standards being implemented by the Financial Accounting Standards Board are making life much more difficult for an established business. They would be not only burdensome but would actually jeopardize the chance of survival for a newly established business.

 

“Outside the accounting and financial realm there have been dozens of other new impediments to the individual who has an innovative idea on which a new business could be started.

 

“The Occupational Safety and Health administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and many more regulatory agencies, most of recent vintage, add hours of work – and completely non-productive work – to the task of anyone on even the most attractive technical innovation.

 

“I have serious doubts that the Hewlett-Packard Company would have survived if in the early years Bill and I had been required to spend our time filling out government forms and responding to bureaucratic demands.

 

 

 

“This is a matter of very grave concern because this trend, if it continues, will most certainly take much of the vitality out of our free enterprise economy. New companies and new enterprises which have sprung from the technical innovation of individual after individual have contributed a great deal to the betterment of the American way of life. They have been a stimulus in providing employment, they have improved income levels, they have developed new and needed products, they have spawned new industries, they have played a major role in improving productivity, and they have been instrumental in helping find solutions to some of society’s most pressing problems.

 

“I am very troubled, therefore, by the continuing attempt of government to add layer on layer of rules and regulations that tell business and industry what it can and cannot do. I have read studies recently that indicate there are more than 5000 different types of federal government forms, and that individuals and businesses spend some 130 million man-hours a year filling them out. The government regulatory workforce now numbers nearly 75,000 and the cost in taxes alone to support this body of enforcers is in the neighborhood of three billion dollars. The real cost to our economy is many times this amount measured by the loss of productivity caused by this vast army of enforcers. Some have estimated this to be at least 50 billions of dollars.”

 

Packard says it is not just the harassment and cost of all these rules and regulations. “it is the philosophy behind them that worries me even more. As James Kilpatrick said in a recent column: ‘The more uniformity, the less freedom. As government becomes our benevolent shepherd, so we must become its obedient sheep.’ I would add the prediction that we are likely to become just as innovative as a band of obedient sheep.

 

Packard refers to the German economic theorist – Friedrich Hayek – who pointed out, in 1944,  that the road to socialism is the road to serfdom. “His theme,” Packard says, “was that democratic Socialism was an impossibility. When the government decides what you must do with whatever wealth you have been able to generate it takes away your personal freedom. I submit to you that this destructive process is now going on in our country. We are a long way down the road toward destroying the essential element that has made technical innovation a forceful element of progress and prosperity these past two hundred years -–it is a priceless asset we can not afford to lose.”

 

“This avalanche of government rules and regulations is not going to be productive in giving the public better products or better services at lower cost. Controls on the actions of business and industry in the areas of environmental control and safety for example, are undoubtedly inspired by lofty ideals – and also needed in some form and some degree. But I’m convinced that we will have a better outcome if business and industry are allowed to anticipate and act on these problems with a minimum of government interference.

 

“It is a fact of life that business and industry have already lost considerable freedom of action. I do not know whether this tide can be turned back but it behooves us to try.

 

“One course of action is for everyone who believes in the free enterprise system to do a better job of maintaining personal contact with members of Congress. A great many of these people are generally sympathetic to business and the free market concept, but often they do not realize the dangers in a proposed piece of legislation unless someone explains the situation to them. I am convinced that all of us must do more than we have in the past in communicating with our government on pending legislation which may affect business operations.

 

“Another step those of us in business can take is to develop effective good citizenship programs in the organizations with which we are associated, whether companies or other enterprises, thereby encouraging informed and effective political participation by our employees and our stockholders They are the people who will lose the most if this trend continues. They can help influence the course of anti-business legislation with their legislative representatives.

 

“And I think all of you who share my concern must do a better job of telling the general public what is going on for they too are the ones who will lose.

 

“In this year of our country’s Bicentennial it is indeed appropriate to renew our commitment to the heritage of freedom given us 200 years ago by our founding fathers – a heritage that includes the freedom to innovate and the freedom to conduct our personal lives with a minimum of government interference.

 

“We need, again and again, to remind ourselves that by working together in a spirit of cooperation the public and private sectors can resolve the major and complex problems facing our country – by working at opposites, we rightfully will be condemned by generations to come for our failure to pass on intact the American enterprise system so essential to a free and healthy nation.

 

“It has been a privilege for Bill and me to be with you tonight, and a great honor to receive the Vermilye Medal.

 

“Thank you.”

 

5/11/76, Copy of a printed pamphlet with the above speech

5/11/76, Copy of a typewritten text of speech

5/11/76, Copy of a typewritten draft of speech with many handwritten notations by Packard

1974, Copy of the printed annual report of The Franklin Institute for 1974

1/29/76, Letter to Packard from Bowen C. Dees, President, The Franklin Institute, telling him that ‘The Board of Managers of The Franklin Institute has voted unanimously to award to you and Mr. William R. Hewlett the Institute’s Vermilye Medal for outstanding accomplishment in the field of industrial management.’

2/9/76, Copy of a letter from Jerry Russom, of a PR firm in San Francisco, to David Kirby of HP public relations, telling him what he had been able to find out about The Franklin Institute.

2/12/76, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Bowen Dees agreeing to accept the Vermilye Medal

2/16/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bowen Dees accepting the honor of the Vermilye Medal

2/18/76, Letter to Packard from Peter Geyelin of the Franklin Institute, giving some background on the medal, and some details of the evening’s program

4/2/76, Memo from Dave Kirby to Margaret Paull and Madie Schneider, Dave and Bill’s secretaries, giving more details on the program and trip

4/20/76, Letter to Packard from Dr. Antonie T. Knoppers, Merck & Co., congratulating Dave and Bill, and asking for a copy of the speech as he will be away and unable to attend

5/18/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bowen C. Dees saying they enjoyed the award evening

6/1/76, Letter to Packard from Harry L. Peters, Sr. VP with Fischer & Porter, asking for permission to send copies of Packard’s speech to their representatives in Washington

6/3/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Harry L. Peters giving permission to send copies of Packard’s speech to their representatives in Washington

 

 

Box 4, Folder 12 – General Speeches

 

May 21, 1976, U. S. Foreign Policy and World Trade, Accepting the 1976 International Achievement Award, World Trade Club, San Francisco, CA

 

5/21/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech, with some notations handwritten by Packard

 

Packard says HP first became involved in world trade some thirty years ago. “Last year,” he says, “our company passed a very significant milestone in our international business when our international orders exceeded our domestic orders.” And he adds that he expects that trend to continue.

 

Packard says he wants to talk “about U.S. foreign policy and make some observations on this policy as it relates to world trade. Too often people in the United States think of our foreign policy as something not very close to their personal lives, and not very important to them, so I would like to begin with some basic observations about U.S. foreign policy and its impact on trade throughout the world.

 

“The first thing we need to remind ourselves is that the foreign policy of the United States must be linked directly and fundamentally to the self interest of our country. Any facet of U.S. foreign policy that does not have as its first objective, as well as its likely outcome, the welfare of the United States, is wrong.”

 

Packard says he supports “self-determination and democracy and the full range of other social and political goals that, if achievable and achieved, would make the world a better place in which to live. I happen to believe, in addition, that charity begins at home and the first and most fundamental goal of U.S. foreign policy must be to make the United States a better place for its own citizens.

 

“World trade, as a fundamental aspect of U.S. foreign policy, has played an important role over these past two centuries in both the economic and social betterment of our country. And, in trading with other countries around the world we have contributed to the economic betterment of our trading partners. I would take this a step further and say that we have often, though not always, contributed to their social betterment as well.

 

In support of this conclusion Packard says, “Ideas follow goods and services around the world. Companies such as ours send people to foreign lands where they become involved in the life and culture of the foreign country. We apply our basic Hewlett-Packard management policies where we have plants abroad. We choose to do this because we feel that our policies, particularly as they relate to the treatment of our employees and our customers, will best promote the welfare of our company. We strongly believe, as well, that they will contribute to the welfare of the countries in which we operate.”

 

“Indirectly then, world trade, and I believe most other facets of U.S. foreign policy, even though primarily directed toward the welfare of our country, have a real and legitimate interest in promoting the welfare of the rest of the world.

 

“In considering the objectives of our foreign policy, national security must have the highest priority. While there exists no military threat to our nation in traditional terms of the invasion of our land, the presence of nuclear weapons is an ultimate threat that we cannot avoid, and must not ignore.”

 

“We need adequate military forces, a foreign policy designed to keep the support of our friends and the respect of our potential enemies, and we must maintain the will for world leadership.”

 

Packard says that when he was in the Department of Defense “it was my responsibility to implement the development of the latest and best weapons for our military forces.” He says they [the U.S.]knew the Soviets were building up their strategic nuclear forces, and they recognized “the absolute necessity of avoiding any real or perceived weakness on our part.” And he mentions a number of weapons and weapons systems that they implemented.

 

“These programs, and [others] have not been fully supported by the Congress. In fact the total shortfall in funding over the past few years amounts to about 40 billion dollars. Some of these important programs have been delayed, although it is fortunate that none has been eliminated.”

 

Packard says that “If Congress and whoever is in the White House will fully support, from here on out, all of the strategic nuclear programs which were initiated during the three years I was in Washington there is no justification for the statement we are, or will become, second best.

 

“We have, and will have, the military forces adequate to keep the support of our friends and the respect of our potential enemies. If we have the will and the wisdom in Washington we can continue, and even enlarge, our role of world leadership.

 

“As we do so, we will contribute to world peace and broaden the opportunity to expand our world trade. Trade clearly flourishes best in a world at peace. Why, though, one may ask, is world trade important to our country? Cannot we isolate ourselves as a nation, concentrate our resources and energies on our problems here at home, and just go back to that nostalgic era when we could let the rest of the world go by?

 

“The most obvious reason,” Packard says, “is that we are no longer anywhere near self-sufficient in natural resources. As you know, our domestic production of oil falls far short of our consumption.” And Packard names a number of metals where we import high percentages of our requirements: manganese, cobalt, chromium, tin, aluminum ore, and nickel. “These are important materials, the benefits of which would be deprived to us – or made exorbitantly expensive – were it not for world trade.

 

“Without trade there would be far fewer jobs in many industries. Half of the jobs in the Hewlett-Packard Company…would disappear – about 5,000 in the United States and 10,000 in the rest of the world.

 

“When we think of what life in the United States would be without world trade I think we conclude, without any doubt, world trade meets the all important first principle of foreign policy – it is in the best interest of the people of the United States.”

 

“U.S. foreign policy must be administered as it impacts world trade in a way that balances a number of complex and interrelated matters, thousands of different kinds of products and thousands of different kinds of jobs.

 

“It is clearly too much to expect that the people in government in the United States, or in any other country, can make the balanced judgments that will provide a near optimum outcome in the complex matters of world trade anywhere nearly as well as will the forces of the free market.

 

“I firmly believe, therefore, that U.S. foreign policy will best serve the interest of the people of the country if it is designed to optimize the barriers to free trade around the world and to strengthen the concept of a free market.”

 

“Ten years ago our company could produce some of our products cheaper in Germany or Japan than here in the U.S. That is no longer true. In some areas we can now build a product in the United States, ship it overseas, pay duty, and deliver it in a foreign country at a lower cost that is required to manufacture the product in that country.

 

“Clearly the future course for our country is to continue to maintain our leadership role in an increasingly interdependent world, to keep the peace, and to do everything we can to eliminate the barriers to free world trade.

 

“We are the only country that has the strength to influence all nations, large and small, weak and powerful, in a way that their differences – their conflicts – can be resolved at levels far below those likely to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.

 

“We are the only nation in the world with the influence to help keep the avenues of world trade open, and thus to help bring the benefits of technology, industrial management, and the invisible hand of the free market to improve the quality of life for our people here at home and our friends abroad.

 

“It has been a great honor to be here tonight. Thank you very much.”

 

5/21/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech with some handwritten notations by Packard

5/21/76, Copy of printed program for the award event

12/12/75, Letter to Packard from Paul Le Baron of the World Trade Club of San Francisco, telling him that he has been selected to receive the World Trade Club’s 1976 Award for International Achievement.

12/17/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Paul Le Baron telling him he will look forward to receiving the award on May 21, 1976

3/11/76, Copy of a letter to James D. North from Christopher R. Redlich telling him of the forthcoming award presentation to Packard and suggesting that ‘some of his campmates’ might wish to organize a table …to be with him on the evening ….

3/18/76, Copy of a letter to Paul Le Baron from Edgar F. Kaiser saying it would be a pleasure to present the award to Packard

3/18/76, Letter to Packard from Edgar F. Kaiser congratulating Packard and saying he looks forward to the evening

4/11/76, Letter to Packard from Alvin Plumer congratulating him on the award

4/16/76, Letter to Margaret Paull from C. R. Redlich thanking her for accepting the invitation to the award event

4/21/76, Letter to Packard from Paul LeBaron giving some details on the ceremony

5/13/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marriner S. Eccles thanking him for his note

5/24/76, Letter to Packard from J. T. Hood of GE, saying they enjoyed their visit with the Packards and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

5/26/76, Letter to Packard from Edgar F. Kaiser, congratulating him again

7/14/76, Letter to Packard from Hugh O’Connell, Crocker Bank, sending Packard a ‘momento book,’ of the evening’s events

7/20/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Hugh O’Connell thanking him for the momento book he had sent

 

Newspaper clippings covering the event

4/9/76, Daily Commercial News

5/22/76, Palo Alto Times

5/24/76, Oakland Tribune

5/24/76, Daily Commercial News

Undated, unnamed paper, photo showing Packard being presented with the award by WTC President Paul Le Baron and Edgar F. Kaiser

 

 

Box 4, Folder 13 – General Speeches

 

June 8, 1976, Electronics and Free Enterprise, The Chicago Spring Conference on Consumer Electronics, Chicago, IL

 

6/8/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech with many handwritten notations by Packard

 

Packard says he wants to discuss “the most serious problem which is confronting all of American business and industry – the low regard in which these segments are held by the American public.” He says, “the confidence and the respect of the people of this country in business and industry is at the lowest level that I can recall. It is a phenomenon difficult to describe, hard to understand, but it is crucial to the very survival of our free enterprise system that business and industry regain the respect and confidence of the American people.”

 

Packard says that polls indicate that only 16% of the public have “faith and respect for American business and industry,” and he compares this to a 55% favorable figure a decade ago. “Yet… polls show,” he adds, “that the public believes the free enterprise system is better than communism or socialism;” although he also points out that “all too many express a preference for government ownership over private ownership of major industries. Many…believe that bigness in business is bad, whereas in fact, it is sometimes not only good but best.”

 

“This low opinion held by the public of business and industry is reflected in a number of much more important and serious ways than in opinion polls.

 

“Ralph Nader can bring forth an army of raiders to defend our customers from the evil acts of our business firms.

 

“The federal government has over the last few years enacted a vast amount of legislation and administrative regulation to protect our customers, our employees, our shareowners, and the general public from the evil schemes of our business firms.”

 

“We now have the government telling us who we can hire, and where and how we can build our plants. Bureaucrats from Washington are involved in the design of our products, in the working environment of our employees, and what we must do for our employees when they retire. We are told what we must disclose to our shareowners, what our product warranties should be, and on ad infinitum.”

 

Packard says that while the intent of this regulation has been good, it has not achieved much of what has been intended. “No one can object,” he says, “to the goals of reducing air and water pollution, or of providing equal opportunity for people regardless of race, color, sex, age, or religion. Certainly we all want safe working environments for our employees, and we have no quarrel with the need to accept the responsibility after their retirement for those men and women who have served our companies well.

 

“I do not dispute the fact that there has been some, but I would emphasize not very much needed improvement in the areas of equal opportunity in employment and in improving the environment, but there are clearly ways we could have done just as well, or even better, at a lower cost.

 

“OSHA, for example, has added substantial costs both on the government side and on the industry side, and has resulted in no significant improvement in occupational safety or health.

 

“Taken together this vast array of regulations which have been imposed on our business enterprises have increased our costs by substantial sums, but have been of very minimal benefit to our customers, our employees, our shareowners, or the general public.”

 

Packard agreed that “air pollution from automobile exhaust is a serious problem that must be dealt with.” But he feels that “The efforts of  the federal government to do this with arbitrary regulations has resulted in very little improvement, but they have imposed a horrendous cost on our economy.

 

“In 1975 alone government mandated features to control emissions, and some features for personal safety, increased the cost of an automobile by $600 or more, and made cars less efficient and less attractive than previous year’s models. Without a doubt this was the major cause of last year’s recession in the automobile industry.

 

“The American people simply did not want a car designed by a committee of the Congress.

 

“This one exercise in federal regulation cost the American people tens of billions of dollars in lost wages during the recent recession, and, there is great doubt that there will be much improvement in the environment from the 1975 model cars, especially as these cars get older.”

 

“The electronics industry has from the very beginning been characterized by technical innovation. The industry was born and has grown to maturity because individuals such as Bill Hewlett and I, and many of you here today, could start a new business with a new product idea and build it into a successful company.

 

“One of the greatest costs to our economy which is not so obvious is the deadening effect of all of these regulatory activities on technical innovation.

 

“This is a matter close to my personal experience, and I would like to put it this way. If, in 1939 and 1940, we had been required to spend as much time dealing with government bureaucrats as is required in business today, I am convinced that Hewlett-Packard Company would never have gotten off the ground.”

 

And Packard says his “intuitive feeling on this subject is reinforced by the fact that there are very few new electronic firms being started today on the San Francisco peninsula compared to the years before 1969. “I have no doubt that this is a problem nationwide, and a problem in many other industries in addition to electronics,” he says.

 

“If what we want in America is a no growth economy and higher cost products, that’s what we are going to have unless we get rid of these nonsensical regulations.”

 

“Some people attribute these problems to the election of the wrong people to the Congress and to the Administration in Washington. And, in doing so, I assume there are still Republicans in Washington. I might note in passing that much of this bad legislation has accrued during a Republican Administration – which has been accused of being pro-business – and with a considerable assist from that Administration. We must remember that men and women are elected to the government by the people back home and, when they take office, they must be generally responsive to their constituents. If we have anti-business people in the Congress, and anti-business legislation and regulation, it is to a very large degree a reflection of the anti-business attitude of the public.

 

“Assuming it is the attitude of the public, some people attribute this to a faulty educational system. They claim that we have not been teaching young people good economics, and that there is too much anti-business philosophy being taught in our schools and colleges. “

 

“Many people believe we should be telling a better story to the public about the virtues and benefits of our great free enterprise economy – what it has done in providing better jobs and better products than any other economic system anywhere or any time. This is true. We have a record to be proud of in many ways and the story about the good things our companies are doing can be communicated better to all of our audiences.

 

“Others believe we should work more closely with people in government on the theory that often they do not understand the probable outcome of legislation they sponsor or support. Some of our legislators do not even fully read or understand the legislation they vote for. Good work is being done in this area, and it will certainly help to have more effective two-way communication between business and government.”

 

Packard, however, says he has come “to the conclusion that we have been looking for the most part at the symptoms of the disease, not at the disease itself.

 

“I believe,” he says, “American business faces this crisis today because American business managers have not lived up to their responsibility to our society. Illegal payments have been made with the hope of getting business or special favors from officials in government, both here at home and abroad. We put off for too long our responsibilities in the area of equal employment – it should not have been necessary for the government to do any more than perhaps prod us into action. We have taken liberty with the truth in our advertising, and often depended on fine print in our warranties to avoid our responsibility to our customers.

 

“Our shareowners would have no need for all the information now demanded for them if they had full confidence in our commitment to their best interest.

 

“Nader’s raiders would get nowhere if their activities did not find fertile ground. Our legislators would have no need for, and in fact would not be interested in, anti-business legislation if the people back home never raised the issue.

 

“I assure you the news media would have no interest in inventing horror stories about business just to make headlines if, in fact, there were no real horror stories about business to make those headlines.

 

“I submit to you that the businessmen of this country have no one to blame but themselves for this terrible situation that has developed for us.

 

“It is not enough that business leadership is much more enlightened in these matters than it was twenty or even ten years ago. We simply have not met the expectations of the people we serve, and until we do we will never be free from ever increasing governmental regulation and pressure group activity coming at us from all sides.

 

“It is terribly unfortunate, because as I have already indicated, governmental regulations seldom solve the problem in a reasonable way. Pressure groups from various sectors of our public are not an effective way to deal with these problems either –  for those who feel themselves aggrieved, or for the business community.

 

“I am convinced that the only way we can hope to turn back this tide which threatens to engulf and destroy our great free enterprise system is for all business leaders, at all levels, to stop passing the blame to someone else and to accept the responsibility as theirs and theirs alone.

 

“Let me explain what I mean – as an example. The stories we hear nearly every day in the news media about an illegal payoff, about price fixing, about the recall of defective products, and all the rest, as I have already said, are not made up by the news media. And, they do not occur because our Boards of Directors or our Chief Executive Officers want them to happen. Quite the contrary. Almost all illegal or unethical acts by people in business happen without the knowledge and in spite of the intent of top management. Nearly every firm I have ever encountered has a code of ethics, whether written or not, which would – if properly communicated to and properly understood by everyone in the organization – serve to prevent any illegal or unethical act by anyone at any level. The reason those bad acts happen is in most cases because of a failure of management communication within an organization. These things happen because someone, at some level in the organization, did not get the message that honesty is the best policy.

 

“Management communication on this matter is not always easy for two significant reasons. Both laws and acceptable customs are continually changing and are different in different countries. This is, no doubt, why multi-national companies have more problems in this area than domestic companies.

 

“Often, too, the correct course of action in a particular situation is not always black or white. When is a payment a legitimate gratuity, and when is it a bribe?

 

“This complexity makes the management communication job more difficult. Publishing a code of ethics is never sufficient. It is the responsibility of top management of make sure the corporate code is understood and accepted at all levels. This requires discussion and repetition – and must be a never ending job.

 

“We have men and women throughout the business community as intelligent and as dedicated to the welfare of mankind as can be found in any other segment of our society. If all of us in this industry and every other industry simply make a commitment that this is our job, I am convinced that it will be done. We simply have to accept the fact that the integrity of each of our business firms is our most important asset, and we must do everything we can to make sure this is understood at all levels of our organizations. If every action we take is resting firmly on the pillars of honesty, fair play, justice, and with at least a small measure of compassion, these troublesome problems will disappear. The time is late and the stakes are high.”

 

6/7-8/76, Copy of printed program for Chicago Spring Conference on Consumer Electronics

9/4/75, Letter to Packard from Anthony Troiano, Program Chairman, inviting him to be the luncheon speaker

1/30/76, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull to Anthony Troiano, saying  that Packard accepts their invitation to be the guest speaker

5/17/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Anthony Troiano sending registration  tickets

6/8/76, Copy of HP press release covering Packard’s speech

6/17/76, Letter to Packard from Frederick B. Dent, The Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, saying he had read the copy of Packard’s speech in Chicago and believes ‘…we are making progress in accommodating the private sector and the Government’s views on trade matters.’

6/22/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Levy saying he found it very significant and encouraging that a man of Packard’s stature in the industrial community ‘would address this issue and confront your colleagues with it.’

8/2/76, Letter to Packard from William E. Simon, Secretary of  Treasury, saying he enjoyed reading Packard’s speech very much and ‘couldn’t agree more’

8/16/76, Letter to Packard from Merl Moore, News Editor, sending advance copies of the publication ‘California Business,’ which includes  Packard’s address

8/20/76, Letter to Packard from Howard Betts General Manager, Delta Rubber,  saying that he had just read Packard’s speech found it ‘great, until you chucked the political spear. Then it sounded like so many words.’

9/27/76, Letter to Packard from Arjay Miller, Dean, Stanford Graduate School of Business, congratulating him on a ‘fine’ speech

Undated, Note from A. J. Pepper enclosing a copy of a speech by a Mr.Pronto

 

Newspaper clippings

4/25/76, From San Francisco Chronicle, is a clipping of a column by James Reston discussing Nelson Rockefeller’s future

4/76, Clipping from An American Spectator, with an article entitled ‘The Business of America,’ by Stephen A. Snow

6/1/76, Clipping from The Wall Street Journal, with an article by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. titled ‘Government, Business and Morality’

6/8/76, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

7/30/76, Letter to Packard from William C. Sands, Jr., enclosing  a clipping from the Electronics Journal covers the speech and describes Packard as ‘Angry, Hurt, and Apologetic’

 

 

 

Box 4, Folder 14 – General Speeches

 

August 27, 1976, Remarks at the 50^th Annual Sacramento Host Breakfast, Sacramento, CA

 

8/27/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard explains that he will start with some background on how the California Roundtable started, and Justin Dart will describe the specific activities already underway.

 

“There has been an alarming loss in the public confidence of business and industry in recent years,” Packard says. “There is an increasingly hostile atmosphere for business and industry, not only in our state, but across the nation as well.

 

“We are being challenged by environmentalists, by consumerists, by equal opportunists, and many other groups within our society. These people, in these activist groups, have, in general, desirable and legitimate goals – but I believe they have had an unduly adverse impact on business and industry, and that a better balance between our mutual goals should be sought.

“Largely as a result of pressure from these activist groups, local, state and federal governments, particularly during the past five or six years, have enacted a large number of restrictions and implemented regulatory actions which have greatly complicated and severely limited the management effectiveness of business and industry.

 

Packard says, however, that the issue is not that management’s job has been made more difficult; nor is it that business has a low rating in the eyes of the public. “he real issue,” he says, “is that these conditions have had a significant adverse effect on the economic welfare and well being of all people – not only across our state, but across our nation.

 

“Anti-business activities have substantially increased the cost of goods and services – from food and housing to automobiles and hospital care. Thus, they have helped create inflation.

 

“They have reduced our ability to create new jobs. Thus, they have increased unemployment.

 

“They have, in some cases, resulted in products which are not only more costly, but also less attractive and less useful. Thus, they have not resulted in cost effective solutions to the problems they have been intended to solve.

 

“Anti-business sentiment, without any doubt, deepened and lengthened our recent recession.

 

“It can be argued that there have been some desirable benefits. But, many would also argue the cost has been far more than the value of the benefits received. And, it is not business and industry alone that pays the cost of these restrictive actions – unfortunately, in the end it is the average citizen who pays. He or she pays higher prices for goods and services, and higher taxes as well. [Or the cost] may be in poor service, or less desirable products, or in the loss of a job.”

 

These troubled times of business and industry are not new Packard says, and he describes several similar occasions since the founding of the country. “This fact offers little solace perhaps,” he says, “but it does mean we could probably learn something from history about how these situations arise and how they turn out.”

 

“One thing is obvious in a historical perspective, when business, or for that matter any other institution in a society, fails to live up to the legitimate aspirations of that society, countervailing forces will arise to try to correct the situation. And at the same time, the higher authority – meaning the government in most cases – will take the matter in hand.

 

“The labor movement was such a countervailing activity. Business and industry during the late 19^th century and early 20^th century failed to understand and accept their proper responsibilities toward their employees. This labor problem, as you well know, also brought about considerable restrictive legislation.”

 

“During the ‘trust- busting’ era the same forces were at work, and have resurged [sic] during the past few years.

 

“In my opinion, this situation with which we are concerned today has been brought on – just as those in the past – by the failure of business leadership to recognize and live up to their full responsibilities to the society in which they work and live. [The] expectations of our society are changing.

 

“Illegal payments have been made with the hope of getting special favors from officials in governments at home and abroad. These actions by a few have made problems for all business and industry. They have made problems because the American people in 1976 expect higher ethical standards. This has not always been the case.

 

“Responsibilities in the area of equal opportunity were not recognized and accepted when they should have been. As a result, pressure groups and the government had to act.

 

“Liberties have been taken with truth in advertising and fine print in warranties to avoid responsibility to customers. Consumerists and regulatory bodies have responded.

 

“Industry could have taken much more serious recognition of environmental problems before it was forced to do so.

 

“As I said a few months ago before an audience in Chicago, Nader’s raiders would get nowhere if their activities did not find fertile ground. Our legislators would have no need for, and in fact would not be interested in, anti-business legislation if the people back home never raised the issue.

 

“There are many things that can be done through better communication with our various publics, better cooperation between business people and people in government on these problems of mutual concern. The California Roundtable has a number of programs under way in these areas which we believe will be helpful. Our success in improving the situation will not come about through an improved public relations effort unless we can also undertake to do a better job in the first place. To the extent we in business can solve some of these underlying problems ourselves, and establish higher standards of business performance, we will minimize future government interference and reduce the adverse effect of public action groups.”

 

Packard then turns to a brief description of how the California Roundtable got started.

 

He says that 1n 1974 the Directors of the California Chamber of Commerce decided that the problems of business and industry should be studied more carefully to determine what might be done to improve the situation. “Accordingly, a task force on business credibility…was established,…and included representatives from other business sectors, education and trade organizations.

 

Packard says the taskforce worked for about a year, and then presented their recommendations to the Chamber Directors in March 1975. “The taskforce recommended a number of specific actions aimed at re-establishing a higher level of trust between the public and the business community. It was recognized that this would require a long and intensive effort, and toward that end the taskforce recommended the establishment of a California Foundation for Commerce and Education to help in this effort to improve the credibility of business.

 

Packard says not everyone agreed with all the recommendations, but “there was a strong feeling that something needed to be done, and so it was unanimously agreed that the proposed new organization be established.”

 

“As we moved along with the job, we realized that much of the work that should be done in California would parallel closely the work of the National Business Roundtable.” And Packard explains that they obtained permission from the national roundtable to re-name the new organization the California Roundtable.

 

“to be successful, we all agreed the organization must have the participation of the Chief Executive Officers of the member companies, and we have an outstanding group of CEOs from across the state now participating.”

 

Packard then says he wishes to list the current projects they have underway, indicating that Justin Dart will describe them in more detail.

 

The projects Packard lists are:

 

“The Legislative Key Contact Program: …intended to establish a more effective and extensive contact between business people across the state and the individual legislators who represent them.”

 

“The Employee Economic Information Program:…intended to encourage better communication with our employees and improve their understanding of business.

 

“The shareholder Information Program:…intended to do a similar job with shareholders.

 

“The Legislative Information Program:…intended to encourage a better understanding, not on specific problems but on business principles, among our legislators.

 

“The Educational systems Program:…intended to improve the level of business understanding in the educational community.

 

“The California Economic Climate Program:…intended to develop some constructive recommendations on how we can improve the business environment in the state.

 

“The Association Evaluation Program:…to evaluate the effectiveness of the many business and trade associations….

 

“The Communication Task Force:…to provide help for us all in finding better ways to communicate with our publics.

 

“The Initiative Process Program:…intended to provide help in how to qualify an initiative under the terms of the California Fair Political Practice Committee.

 

“The Standards of Performance Program:…plans to develop some activities that will encourage higher ethical standards in the performance of business and industry.

 

“The Disclosure Program:…plans to assist our business enterprise in improving their policies in relation to the corporate data they disclose to the public.”

 

With that, Packard turns the meeting over to the next speaker, Justin Dart.

 

8/27/76, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech – does not incorporate his handwritten notes

8/27/76, Letter to Packard from Stanley E. McCaffrey, President, University of the Pacific, congratulating Packard on his speech

8/30/76, Letter to Packard from Dalton G. Feldstein, a member of the Host Committee, saying he felt proud to hear Packard’s remarks.

8/30/76, Letter to Packard from George C. Halvorson, Dean, School of Business, San Jose State University, complimenting Packard on his speech, and asking for a copy

 

Newspaper clippings covering Packard’s speech

8/27/76, The Sacramento Union

Undated, unnamed, possibly Palo alto Times

Undated, column by Ron Roach, discusses Gov. Brown’s speech as well as Packard’s who both spoke at the event

 

Box 4, Folder 15 – General Speeches

 

October 27-28, 1976, Office of Naval Research, Thirtieth Anniversary,

Washington D.C.

 

This two day symposium was partly to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Office of Naval Research,  and partly to present a series of lectures focused on Science and the Future Navy. Packard was invited to be the dinner speaker at the close of the event and this is the speech he gave on that occasion. He was also asked to attend, on 10/28, dedication ceremonies  of a building for the Defense Systems Management College which Packard had been instrumental in opening in 1971 when he was Deputy Secretary of Defense. There is no copy of the remarks he gave on that occasion, but this folder does contain several pages of Packard’s handwritten notes listing points he intended to make at the dedication. These notes are given below, after a summary of his dinner speech.

 

10/28/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s dinner speech at the close of the Symposium

 

Packard briefly reviews the role science has had in warfare over the centuries, starting with Archimedes, in the third century B. C., who, he says, “may have been the first to apply science to naval warfare when he devised a scheme to focus the sun’s rays on the sails of the Roman fleet to set them on fire.”

 

“But never before World War II, he says, “was science such a large and decisive factor. Radar, radio navigation and direction finding, electronic countermeasures, sonar, and many other technical weapons including the atom bomb were the primary measure of superiority of the allied forces that brought victory.”

 

Packard recalls how the Office of Naval Research was established in 1946 to “carry forward into the future the successful mobilization of science that had been done for the war…”

 

“The United States emerged from World War II ahead of every other nation in the world in technology. It is, in my view,” Packard says, “a tremendous accomplishment that, thirty years later, we are still ahead of every nation in the world in technology.

 

“And I, for one, think it is kind of important to keep it that way,” Packard says.

 

Packard stresses the importance of scientific research and says that the ONR managed research well in two aspects. “Careful thought was given to those areas of research which might be of benefit to the Navy, and those areas were supported at an adequate level and over a reasonable period of time. Nuclear energy, research on materials, solid state electronics, oceanography, and other fields which might have an important payout for the Navy were given emphasis.”

 

“ONR  selected centers of promise in the fields where it supported programs, which [appeared to have] the promise of becoming centers of excellence. And many of those centers…did indeed become centers of excellence.”

 

“As is appropriate, this scientific knowledge has been responsible for specific and important contributions to the capability of our Navy. Nuclear propulsion of naval vessels, great advances in anti-submarine warfare, real improvements in electronic countermeasures, just to name a few, can be credited to research sponsored and supported by ONR.

 

“ ONR has been important for our Navy, but work of this organization has contributed to the capability of the other services as well, the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines. This is because ONR has supported a great deal of basic research that has no unique mission, but which contributes to all missions, whether they be military or civilian.”

 

ONR supported early work in high energy physics at Stanford, for example, and this has given us a new important tool to fight cancer. I do not know of much benefit the Navy has received from this program, but it has certainly been a great benefit to this important aspect of medicine. ONR supported a broad range of research on materials and this has contributed many things, including the performance and safety of our great commercial air transport system. This work on materials has also kept us ahead of the Soviet Union in military aircraft performance.

 

“ONR supported much of the early research in solid state electronics and this has added greatly to the capability of the U.S. Navy in 1976. This research in solid state electronics was a key factor in keeping America ahead of the world in electronic computers, digital calculators, in digital watches, better telecommunication, and in may other areas that have given us substantial benefits in addition to national security.

 

“So, as we salute ONR tonight we salute this organization not just for the great contribution it has made to the U.S. Navy, but for the contribution it has made to the world wide superiority in technology we in the United States enjoy today.”

 

Packard says he would like to say a word about the future in relation to national security.

 

“Earlier I suggested that World War II was a war of technology. We are now much further down the road. We hope there will never be a World War III, and our highest objective is to have the means to deter – to prohibit – another global war.

 

“Our ability to deter another world war and our ability to prevail, should such a war occur, will not be determined only by the number of soldiers and sailors we have in relation to our enemies, not by the relative number of weapons, whether they be missiles, tanks, airplanes, or ships. Our ability to keep the peace will be determined by the capability of our weapons in relation to those of our enemies.

 

“Our ability to preserve the peace in the future will thus, in my view, be determined by whether we can preserve the technical superiority we now enjoy over the Soviet Union, or any other possible adversary, and our ability to translate superior technology into superior weapons.”

 

“There is no alternative from the standpoint of national security. We must continue to support research and development at a level which will assure that we maintain the lead in technical superiority we have enjoyed over these past three decades. This will require a level of funding to keep up with inflation and it will require a level of funding that will assure all possible avenues of research are adequately cornered. Whether the 10% increase per year that is now in the planning is enough or not needs the most careful study.

 

“There is no doubt we can easily afford more should it be necessary. I am absolutely certain we can not afford to have less. It will take money and it will take wise management of research to stay ahead.

 

“The record of ONR over these past three decades has been a record of unparalleled success in the effective management of R&D. Let’s hope we can take this lesson from the past and apply it to the future.

 

“I know of no better way to assure that our nation – and the rest of the world – can look forward to peace rather than war, to a future of opportunity rather than catastrophic disaster than to maintain world wide leadership in science. We can never afford to be second best in science for if we let that happen we will most certainly eventually be second best in national security.

“And this must not happen, ladies and gentlemen.”

 

10/28/76, Extracts from Packard’s handwritten notes for his remarks at the dedication of  the Defense Systems Management College

 

• “Pleased that Defense Systems Management College has progressed so well since its beginning in 1971
• Early in 1969 began to study problem concerning the development for new weapons not very efficient – C5A – Cheyenne
• Managed Development program
• Professional manager in charge
• Not too much, hopefully no meddling by Congress
• Good support and no second guessing by people in OSD
• Solve the problem by doing it right the first time
• Put a top professional in charge – give him authority, responsibility and support
• Procedures for attracting and developing professional managers to the services for these important jobs
• Establish College to educate more people in professional management of Defense Systems
• This college has a very important mission to maintain our national security
• The superiority of our forces and those of our allies will not be measured in numbers of soldiers, planes, guns, or ships
• The quality – capability must be kept superior
• We are the worlds leader in Advanced Technology – have been for 30 years, and must continue to be
• We have not done a very good job in converting that technology to specific new weapons. At least not as good a job as should
• New weapons systems have taken too long – sometimes obsolete before production  – cost too much
• There are examples of where the job has been done right. The goal is to do all the future jobs right.
• Even though we do not do as well as we should, Soviets have great respect for our technology and for our development ability.
• No better way to assure future peace than to keep ahead in technology and to keep ahead in our ability to convert that technology into the most advanced and the most effective weapons for the Army, the navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps
• Your role here at this College in providing the professional expertise to do this job right in the future is just as important to the future security of our nation as any assignment you can have.”

 

 

10/28/76,Copy of a second typewritten text of his speech which includes the handwritten notations he had made on the first draft

10/27-28/76, Copy of the printed program for the Symposium

10/28/76, Copy of the printed program for the dinner banquet at the closing of the Symposium

10/27/76, Copy of a printed Admission Card for the Symposium

10/27/76, Copy of a notice announcing a change of location for the Symposium

6/24/76, Letter to Bernard M Oliver, HP Vice President,  R&D,  from Lee M. Hunt, National Research Council, thanking him for agreeing to convey their desire to invite Packard to speak at the Symposium on Science and the Future Navy

7/5/76, Copy of a letter from Barney Oliver to Lee Hunt, saying that Packard accepts their invitation to give the dinner address at their October Symposium

7/12/76, Letter to Packard from Rear Admiral R. K. Geiger, Chief of Naval Research expressing appreciation that Packard will speak at their dinner, and giving details of the arrangements

7/29/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral Geiger asking for some information

8/27/76, Letter to Packard sending the requested information

8/27/76, Personal letter from Admiral Geiger to Packard saying he plans to visit his son at Stanford and may call Packard

9/3/76, Copy of a general letter to Symposium speakers from the National Research Council, unsigned, giving details on arrangements for the Symposium

9/10/76, Letter to Packard from William P. Clements, Deputy Secretary of Defense, telling him that a new building at Fort Belvoir for the Defense Systems Management College, is to be dedicated in Packard’s honor on October 28, 1976. He invites Mr. and Mrs. Packard to attend.

9/15/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to William Clements saying they look forward to joining them at the dedication ceremony

10/5/76, Letter to Packard from Major General John G. Albert, giving information about the dedication ceremony

10/8/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Gen. Albert saying he and Mrs. Packard  will be pleased to join he and Mrs. Albert – and he will be prepared to make a few remarks

11/29/76, Letter to Packard from  Admiral Geiger thanking Packard for coming to the Symposium and asking permission to publish Packard’s banquet address in their Symposium proceedings

12/8/76, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, to Admiral Geiger giving permission to publish Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 16 – General Speeches

 

November 3-4, 1976, The Place of Enterprise in a  Mixed Economy, The Seventh International Forum, Aviemore, Scotland

 

The program for the forum states the purpose of the conference as follows:

‘The International forum of the Scottish Council has been conceived as a means of exposing Scotland to the influence of the changes taking place throughout the world. It is not intended to reach conclusions thereby. Action – except within individual spheres of influence of participants – is not within the purposes of the International Forum, but if a direction is pointed this will undoubtedly be taken up.’

 

Packard was designated as giving the Opening Address scheduled first on Nov. 3.

 

Keying on the theme of the Forum, Packard says he wants to expand and to make “a few observations about enterprise on a broader scale. I am referring to enterprise in the behavior of man,”…he says, adding that “…in doing so, I hope that I may provide some encouragement for us to take the larger view of the subject in our discussions here.”

 

Packard sees enterprise as a characteristic of an individual. “Groups of people – athletic teams, industrial organizations, even entire societies – display enterprise that can vary widely in its intensity. Yet I do not believe that the enterprise of a group of people can ever be any more than the sum of the enterprise of the individuals that make up the group.”

 

“An individual with a large measure of enterprise often has a strong influence over a group of people. Enterprise is an essential ingredient of leadership.”

 

“…enterprise is a most important and dynamic human characteristic when it is present in an organization of people at all levels – not just at the top.

 

“The most effective organization of people, whether a club, a business, a state, or a nation is a group of people with intelligence, ability, and enterprise committed to a common goal.”

 

And Packard gives some examples: “The Norsemen who ventured over the seas to land here in Scotland and later push on to the North American continent had enterprise.

 

“The men and women who crossed the Atlantic to the hostile coast of America had enterprise.

 

“Inventors over the centuries, including such renowned Scotsmen as James Watt, Lord  Kelvin, and James Clark Maxwell had enterprise.

Great Britain and Scotland were powerful and wealthy countries in past centuries, indeed until World War II, mainly because your people had great enterprise – at all levels of your society – not just at the top.

 

“Japan has become a wealthy and powerful nation in these last three decades not because she has great natural resources, not because here people are more intelligent, but rather because an unusually high level of enterprise has developed among her people during this period.- and again at all levels – not just at the top.

 

“We talk much about the need to transfer wealth to the developing nations. This cannot be done with capital, or education, or charity of any kind. Real and lasting wealth can not exist without enterprise.

 

“Since in my view this appears to be the case, we should then give some consideration to the factors that bring out this quality of enterprise in an individual, and nurture it in a society.

 

“One of these is individual freedom – individual liberty. Enterprise is encouraged when a person is free to develop and use his talents and his energy in the way he thinks best. Regulations and regimentation are the enemies of enterprise, and we can find examples of this in all kinds of organizations.”

 

“On a larger scale, the importance of individual freedom in engendering enterprise is demonstrated over and over again by the comparison between the efficiency of the collective farms in the Soviet Union, and the productivity of the small garden plots that individual farmers are allowed to have.”

 

To illustrate this last point – that is the opportunity for individual reward – Packard gives this vignette: “Our farmer in the Soviet Union, for example, is not highly motivated to leave the warm bed of his wife on a cold winter night to help the state sow produce a litter of pigs. But it is an entirely different matter if the sow belongs to him – as will the litter of pigs.”

 

“Freedom, and the opportunity for personal reward, then, are the key motivating factors that encourage enterprise in an individual….And the same principles apply to all other organizations of people, including states and nations.”

 

Saying that “Scotland has had a great tradition of individual enterprise in economic affairs, in political affairs, and in education, religion, and other areas of human endeavor. The Scottish people have, over the period of recorded history, produced many men and women of great enterprise.

 

“Yet the results of private enterprise in recent years in Scotland – as well as in many other countries of the free world – have somehow failed to produce an acceptable level of welfare for all of the people. And this lack of success of free individual enterprise has kindled the fires of socialism here, as it has elsewhere in the world.”

 

Packard feels this decrease in stature and achievements since the United Kingdom was in its prime was “not necessarily due to a disappearance of the innate desires or ability of people, but rather one resulting from a gradual deterioration of the economic and social environment that nurtures individual enterprise.”

 

“We have many examples of the dynamic force of individual enterprise throughout recorded history – a force that has spurred men and women to rise above the call of duty time and time again across the entire face of the world. Without doubt, the success of individual achievement characterized by this thing we call enterprise is largely responsible for all of the progress man has made over the centuries.

 

“Even so, free enterprise somehow has not lived up to the expectations of a large portion of the people, even in those areas where it has been the dominant character of the economy. Indeed, a large proportion of people are living under Communistic or socialistic governments were individual enterprise is either prohibited or suppressed.”

 

Socialism, with its concept that a group of people could get together and work efficiently for the common good has had a great appeal over the years. But because it lacks the mechanisms to encourage individual enterprise, it can never have the potential of an individual enterprise system. Religion has made people rise above their personal interests. War, or the threat to home and family, have made people rise above their individual interests. We have yet, however, to find a way to make people put the interest of their fellowman ahead of the interest of themselves in a whole society for any sustained period. And I do not believe that we can ever do so. The opportunity for the individual – for every individual, must be established and jealously guarded, the opportunity for the individual to benefit personally in proportion to his good work.

 

“There may be some way to manage and direct individual enterprise to maximize the welfare of the entire society. We should strive to do this on the assumption that it can be done. But short of that kind of an ideal solution, I am firmly convinced that the welfare of your country, and of ours, as well as every other country in the free world, will be served best by supporting individual enterprise in the private sector – and encouraging the support of enterprise in the public sector to the extent this can be done.

 

“Experience has shown that a state owned enterprise can seldom match the efficiency of an enterprise owned and operated by individuals. It does not follow that all private business is efficient or good, nor that all state owned business is inefficient – or bad.”

 

“…if you concur with me that enterprise is an important human quality that has made, over the past centuries, a vast contribution to human progress – then I hope you will also agree that the discouragement and the possible destruction of enterprise would be a disaster of unimaginable consequence. We cannot afford to let that happen, and this brings us to the point of our conference here at Aviemore. What can you do in Scotland to revitalize private enterprise in your economy? And related to this all-important issue, what can we do in America to prevent the destruction of private enterprise in our economy?

 

“A basic starting point, I believe, is to reaffirm our belief in equality of opportunity. I would even suggest that an absolutely essential goal of our societies should be to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to develop his or her individual abilities, intelligence, creativity, in the optimum way. And to make sure there are adequate incentives to encourage the development of enterprise in the individual at all levels in society.

 

“We have worked very hard at this over the years in my company. One of our most important corporate objectives directly relates to encouraging enterprise among our people. It reads, ‘To help Hewlett-Packard people share in the company’s success, which they make possible; to provide job security based on their performance; to recognize their individual achievements; and to insure the personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment in their work.’

 

“Our company has a division located in South Queensferry just out of Edinburgh. We have been working hard with this group of people over the last ten years or so to enable them to make a positive contribution to our company and to your country.

 

“They have now done so, and this year the group of Hewlett-Packard people in South Queensferry have been at the top of all of our divisions worldwide. Their growth in business and their level of production have been absolutely outstanding. They have developed a number of significant new products in their research and development laboratories which are marketed throughout the world. In fact, 80 percent of all the equipment produced at HP, Ltd. Is exported, thus contributing substantially to the U.K. balance of payments.”

 

“Needless to say, I am very proud of this division. It is an excellent illustration of how individual enterprise can be a tremendous motivating force for human endeavor.

 

“However, the prices and incomes policy in the U.K. has been, and continues to be, a serious roadblock to our ability to provide sufficient financial reward for the magnificent job our great management team at HP, Ltd. has done.

 

“Although the limitations proposed by this policy affect people throughout the organization, it is our professional people who feel the impact the most. After reaching a level prescribed by law, they can improve their income only by receiving a promotion into a new job, by being assigned significantly increased responsibilities on their present job, or by finding employment outside the U.K. with HP or some other firm.

 

“We have had to work very hard under the prices and incomes policy to maintain the high level of incentive and enthusiasm we have among our management people here. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.

 

“I am, therefore, very much concerned about the future of our company’s operation here in Scotland unless something is done soon to restore the opportunity to reward our people for their outstanding enterprise. I am sure almost every other firm in this country is having similar problems and concerns.

 

It seems to me, then, this Seventh International Forum has selected a very important subject for discussion these next two days. The welfare of my company’s activity here in Scotland, and indeed the welfare of the entire British Commonwealth will be determined largely by whether the environment and incentives to encourage individual enterprise are once again reinstated.

 

“There can be no progress in this world without individual enterprise. We must find a way to couple this great source of strength with the aspirations and the needs of all of the people.

 

“I suggest to you that this is what we should talk about at the conference here at Aviemore. And this is what we should talk about whenever  and wherever we address the future welfare of mankind.”

 

11/3/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with many handwritten notations by him

11/3/76, Revised typewritten text of Packard’s speech incorporating the handwritten notations he had made in the original

11/3-4/76, Typewritten program for the Forum

11/3/76, Typewritten text of remarks, although unidentified, appear to be the remarks of  The Lord Clydesmuir introducing Packard. He says the Forum Committee decided to deal with the subject of enterprise as an individual human quality.

10/16/76, Typewritten text of a speech by William E. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury.

2/5/76, Letter to Packard from the Rt Hon Lord Clydesmuir, President and Chairman of Executive, of the Scottish Council Development and Industry, inviting Packard to be the opening speaker at their Forum in November

2/20/76, Letter to Packard from Lindsay B. Aitken, Industrial Director, transmitting the above letter from Lord Clydesmuir, which he had hoped to deliver in person

3/25/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lord Clydesmuir saying he would be pleased to come to Scotland to participate in the International Forum

3/25/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Peter Carmichael, HP plant manager in Edinburgh, telling him of his Forum participation, and asking that he stay in touch with the Scottish Council on the details. He also suggests they get together for some grouse shooting while he is there.

3/76, Copy of provisional program for the Forum

4/5/76, Letter to Packard from Ronald Clydesmuir saying he is delighted to hear that Mr. and Mrs. Packard will be coming to Scotland

5/10/76, Copy of a telegram to Packard from Lindsay Aitken, Industrial Director, saying he plans to be in Palo Alto May 20 and would like to visit to bring Packard up to date on Forum plans.

8/4/76, Letter to Packard from Jim Saunders, Forum Manager, sending copies of papers they have sent out announcing the Forum, and stating they have had an excellent response

10/11/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Kenneth Sinclair in England, referring to a previous conversation they had about getting together for dinner with ”a few people from the government,” and asking if that would be possible around the time of the Forum

10/19/76, Copy of a telegram from Jim Saunders giving hotel arrangements, and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

10/20/76, Copy of a telegram from Packard to Jim Saunders saying a copy of his speech has be sent

10/25/76, Copy of a telegram to Packard from Jim Saunders, Scottish Council, saying he has received the copy of Packard’s speech

11/9/76, Internal HP memo from Peter Carmichael to Packard sending a pair of gloves which he assumes were left by Mrs. Packard

11/12/76, Copy of a letter to James Saunders from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, sending a copy of Packard’s speech which he had updated with additional comments made at the Forum

11/12/76, Letter to Packard from Ronald Clydesmuir saying that his opening address at the Forum ‘splendidly set the scene for our discussion on Enterprise.’

11/8/76, Letter to Packard from Hugh Parker, McKinsey & Company, saying ‘I could only wish that there were more industrialists in this country as clear-headed and articulate as you are’ He encloses a copy of The McKinsey Quarterly, which contains a speech he recently made on the subject of free enterprise

11/17/76, copy of a letter from Packard to Hugh Parker saying “It seems to me there will have to be a major change in attitude [in the U.K.] before any real progress can be made, but I don’t see much evidence of a desire to make a change in the right direction.”

11/16/76, Letter to Margaret Paull  from James Sanders saying they would like to cover Packard’s expenses for his trip to Scotland. A note is attached  [presumably from Margaret Paull] asking if it is OK to tell Sanders that no expenses need be reimbursed. The handwritten reply says “yes”

11/4/76 Clipping from the Scotsman newspaper, covering Packard’s address

Undated, Copy of a printed booklet titled ‘Technology: Adam Smith, Uncle Sam and Big Brother’

Box 4, Folder 9 – General Speeches

2/25/77, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli, asking if he would be willing to invite former president Gerald Ford to their annual dinner on December 15, 1977.

3/7/77,  Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli suggesting that Cinelli write President Ford, and send a copy to Packard, who will drop Ford a note urging him to consider the invitation.

3/9/77 Letter to Packard from Alfred Cinelli attaching a copy of the letter to President Ford

3/15/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Gerald Ford urging him to accept the invitation to the dinner

3/16/77, Copy of a letter from Robert E. Barrett, Executive Assistant to President Ford, saying it is too early to make a commitment for an event in December. He says they will be in touch later.

3/22/77, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli referring to Barrett’s response on behalf of President Ford and saying, “I do hope that through your efforts he will be able to accept.”

4/8/77, Letter from President Ford to Packard thanking him for his endorsement of the Football Award Dinner.

11/3/77, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli inviting him to attend the Eighteenth Annual Awards Dinner on December 15^th, 1977. A copy of the program of the 17^th annual dinner is attached

11/8/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli saying he will not be able to attend the dinner.

7/1/77, Letter to Packard from William L. Spencer, President, Citibank, asking if Packard will participate in a fund to endow a building for a football Hall of Fame.

7/7/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to William Spencer saying he will “keep the Football Foundation and Hall of Fame endowment fund on the list for consideration…”

9/12/77, Letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy of the Football Foundation inviting Packard to the 20^th Annual Awards Dinner. A handwritten note thereon says “No, away.”

11/30/77, Telegram to Packard from Jimmy McDowell saying they have not heard if Packard intends to join them at the 20 Annual Awards Dinner.

Box 4, Folder 17 – General, Speeches

 

February 10-12, 1977, First National Symposium of the Civilian/Military Institute, Colorado Springs, CO

 

2/10/77, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks at the opening of this symposium. Packard makes a few comments, followed by Donald R. Seawell, President of the Institute who is introduced by Lt. General James R. Allen. Packard then returns to give his ideas on some of the issues the Institute might discuss.

 

Packard says he is delighted to see “so many distinguished men and women” in attendance. He hopes for “some constructive dialogue and discussion” and hopes “we can chart the way for the future course of the Civilian/Military Institute.”

 

Packard explains that the symposium is divided into three agendas: the first being the National Affairs Agenda chaired by John Dunlop, Secretary of Labor under President Ford. The second agenda is the International Affairs Agenda, and the Chairman is General Andrew J. Goodpaster, former head of NATO forces and soon to be Superintendent of West Point. Dr. Walter O. Roberts, Program Director of the Aspen Institute Program in Science, Technology and Humanism, chairs the Science and Technology Agenda.

 

Packard then turns the podium over to Lt. General James R. Allen who introduces Donald R. Seawell, President of the Institute, and also President of the Denver Post.

Mr. Allen talks about the five year process of planning for the Civilian/Military Institute. He tells of endorsement by President Ford who felt the all the military services should be involved – not just the Air Force. The idea of the founders was to create an institute where the civilian and military sectors could meet and discuss freely or debate freely any issues of mutual importance.

 

Packard then return to the podium.

 

Packard says when he was first asked to undertake this job his first inclination was to say no. “That had to do,” he says, “with the fact that in recent years I have become somewhat biased against conferences and meetings and symposiums and so forth, having attended too many of them; and I sometimes get around to the view that the world might be a little better off it I just stayed home and did some work instead of coming to meetings like this. But he later concluded “that this conference could provide a unique opportunity to address some of the important issues of the country and bring a thoughtful group of people together to discuss and debate these matters. ”He says he hopes that “at the end of this meeting [we will] have the opportunity to set the course for this Institute in a way that will be constructive and permanent.”

 

Packard says he hopes “we can have a serious dialogue on these issues and have a broad participation from all of you here in the audience.

 

“We’re not here no preach,” he says, “the military establishment of our country interacts in very many ways with the civilian sector, [and] “I would like to suggest a few of these important areas of interaction with the thought that this might provoke a little discussion in addition to the subjects that will be brought up at the more formal sessions.”

 

“Today, we in the United States are vulnerable to a direct attack upon our homeland, an attack of such devastation that it could easily destroy our country. This situation has existed for probably less than twenty years in the two hundred-year course of the history of this nation. Many people do not like to talk about this awesome danger or even think about this situation, but I think there is no higher priority than assuring the absolute deterrence of nuclear war, and I’m sure this subject will be discussed.

 

“The second way in which the world is different than it was just a decade or two ago is that we are now living in a much more interdependent world, and the United States cannot escape from its leadership of this world. Our military strength, our economic strength, our diplomatic capability, and indeed our moral posture are all essential elements necessary to exercise and maintain this world leadership. And we cannot avoid this responsibility.”

Packard suggests other areas as “appropriate for discussions at this symposium or at the following meetings that may come along. One of the most important areas of common interest and interaction between the military and civilian sectors is in the field of science and technology. Today, a significant portion of our scientists and engineers…are supported with DOD funds….I think an important subject that we should discuss here, and I’m sure we will, is the benefits that the civilian sector enjoys today which come originally from military research and development. Our great air transport system had this genesis. Many of the very important achievements in medicine that have contributed in great measure to the health of all people in our country – all people in the world – came from military research and development in the field of medicine. In my field, electronics, I think it can be accurately said that we are ahead of the rest of the world largely because of the very heavy support in the area of R&D by the Defense Department during the several decades following World Wear II…..The session on science and technology under Dr. Roberts has, I think, much to talk about.”

 

“Over years, as you all know, our military services have made a very important contribution in the area of vocational training in this country; business and industry have many employees who learned their trade through a tour of duty in the Army or the Navy or the Air Force or the marines. And this military service continues to be an important opportunity for young people in making the transition into civilian life.

 

“I think there are many areas appropriate for discussion at this conference, in addition to those that are on the agenda, I’m sure that we will not be able to cover all of these subjects at this meeting, but there is a great deal of material that would justify a continuing effective and useful dialogue on this general subject.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 18 – General Speeches

 

October 18, 1977, American Consulting Engineers Council, San Francisco, CA

 

Packard was selected to receive the Fellows Award of Merit, an award made annually since 1952.

 

10/18/77, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with several handwritten notations by him.

 

Packard says being “recognized as an engineer has a very special, nostalgic meaning for me. At some point in my very early youth I decided I wanted to become an engineer. It didn’t matter whether such a career would be financially rewarding. What was important was that reading about bridges, dams, railroads, machines and all the other things that are the province of engineers evoked an emotional response in me – a response that was to determine my professional future.

 

Packard says he made the decision to become an engineer before he was twelve years old  – “It was a decision I have never regretted, and that is why I am especially pleased to be recognized by my fellow engineers.”

 

“If we go back in history,” Packard says, “one of the earliest responsibilities of engineers was to contribute to the art of war. Among other things, these military engineers constructed military roads, devised means of crossing rivers, developed methods of building fortifications, and designed engines of war for attacking them. “

 

And Packard cites other areas where engineering has made great contributions.  “The industrial revolution was a remarkable engineering achievement. Engineers succeeded in harnessing the previously unclaimed resources of water, of wind, and of coal, to multiply by many times the energy needed to improve the material welfare of people throughout much of the world.

 

He also mentions the areas of mining, agriculture, travel, the telephone, and electricity as “accomplishments of our profession – these are the improvements that engineers have brought to the physical structure of human society. We can be proud of our profession.

 

“But civilization and human welfare are not solely dependent on the material things that are the primary concern of engineers. There are also aesthetic values, art, beauty, nature, religion, that are equally important ingredients – and engineering is not isolated from these human values.

 

“In fact, engineers and engineering principles have made great contributions to art and beauty in very specific ways.” And he refers to cathedrals, Greek temples, the pyramids, and others.

 

“Leonardo Da Vinci was one of the greatest artists of all times. He was also one of the greatest engineers of his time.

 

Packard says the United States has enjoyed some very special benefits from the engineering profession. “Our first president, George Washington, was an engineer. The winning of the West was the result of many talents, many professions, but engineers played an essential role –  railroads, canals, irrigation projects were among the areas where engineers contributed to the progress of America in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.”

 

“The Western World,” he says, “ is living on the achievements of the engineering profession. Engineers have worked very hard at, and contributed much to, housing, health, education and the enjoyment of art, literature and music – all of which is available to more people than ever before in history.

 

“Even so, we are troubled about the way things are going for the civilized world of the last few decades of the twentieth century.

 

“We see the great material benefits that our profession has helped bring to the world subjected to question – challenged as to whether they have been good or bad.”

 

Packard says he has no problem with this question. “I know that our profession has made the world a better place to live for the vast majority of the people. I cannot be quite so positive about some of the other great professions, the law and politics for example.

 

“I believe one of the most troublesome aspects of society today is that too many people who are not engineers are becoming involved in matters where engineering expertise is the most important ingredient.

 

“Air pollution from automobiles is a good example. It is a worthy goal to reduce the level of critical ingredients of air pollution – carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrous oxide – to minimal levels. The trade-off factors – cost, use of fuel – are longer term considerations which would be considered in an engineering solution to the problem.

 

“Instead, we had to accept a political solution to the problem in 1975. This resulted in an unnecessary decrease in fuel efficiency which caused an increase in the domestic demand for oil. The solution also meant introducing design features to meet short term political demands at the expense of good engineering designs to meet legitimate goals for air pollution, fuel efficiency and economy.

 

“In short, the American public was offered automobiles designed by the politicians, not by engineers – and this unfortunate situation that began in 1975 and has not yet run its course, has cost the American public billions of dollars.

 

“Worse yet, the Administration has proposed an energy bill now before the Congress which, in my view, assures our dependence on foreign oil in the foreseeable future, creates little incentive to develop energy independence, and, if passed as proposed by the Carter Administration, will be a long and probably irreversible step down the road toward socialism for our country. More and more decisions are being made in Washington.

 

“The engineering profession has thrived and made contributions to the welfare of society without much supervision – up until about the last ten years.”

 

“Engineering is most productive in an environment of expanding technology, economic incentive and freedom to innovate. A free democratic society has provided such an environment in the most effective way in the past. I believe a free democratic society will be the most effective environment for our profession in the future.

 

“I am troubled, therefore, by the increasing number of constraints – political, legal, and social – which have been restricting the freedom of engineers to do their job at the high professional level in the past tradition of engineering.

 

“Someone several years ago pointed out that when society finds itself faced with a troublesome issue, there are three possible responses to resolve the problem, and one or more of these will come into play when the situation becomes serious enough.

 

“One response is that the government will be pressed into action by the disturbed citizenry.

 

“A second is that pressure groups will arise among the citizenry to try to correct the problem.

 

“A third is that the self discipline of the people most closely involved with the problem will identify the situation early and take corrective action before the other two mechanisms get out of hand.

 

We are finding today that in many areas with the province of the engineering profession the first two mechanisms – government interference and public pressure groups – are almost out of hand already. As we have seen, government regulations seldom solve problems in a reasonable way. Similarly, pressure groups from various sectors of our public are not an effective way to deal with these problems. Neither for those who feel themselves aggrieved nor for the welfare of our society.

 

“I believe our profession could and should take a more aggressive role in these important issues of public concern relating to engineering problems, energy, pollution, safety. I know much is already being done by our professional societies and by individuals, but I believe it is time to do more.”

 

And he suggests helping to educate the public, helping members of Congress by providing advice and counsel.

 

Packard says he realizes that many engineers do not like to become involved in public affairs and in political processes, “but I sincerely believe more of us should do so. We should consider more carefully the public concerns about the work we do, and we should not hesitate to speak up when we see our government taking the wrong course in relation to engineering problems. We should consider more carefully the public concerns about the work we do, and we should not hesitate to speak up when we see our government taking the wrong course in relation to engineering problems.

 

“It is not too late,” Packard says, “to slow and even reverse these dangerous trends that are limiting the effectiveness of our profession, but it will require a commitment on our part to do so.

 

“Technology is continuing to expand,” he says. “There are immensely important problems to be solved in energy, transportation, communication, housing and health, just to name a few. These are just the kinds of problems engineers have solved in the past, and if they are to be solved in the future, they will be solved by engineers, not by politicians.

 

“It is important therefore to work harder to preserve the environment of freedom our profession has particularly enjoyed during the recent decades of this twentieth century when engineering accomplishment has been so spectacular.

 

“I encourage each of you to give this important problem serious attention in areas where you are involved. It is important that we do so, for our profession and for our country.”

 

10/18/77, Typewritten text of speech which does not incorporate handwritten notes made on the copy above

9/12/77, Letter to Packard from Eugene B. Waggoner, American Consulting Engineers Council, notifying him that he has been selected to receive the Fellows Award of Merit. Information about the council and a copy of the speech given by the 1976 award recipient, W. H. Pickering, are attached.

9/15/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Eugene B. Waggoner saying he “is honored and pleased” to be selected, and will plan to join them at the Bohemian Club, on October 18^th.

10/18/77, Newspaper clipping, from unidentified paper, covering the award

 

 

Box 4, Folder 19 – General Speeches

 

November 12, 1977, Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients, San Jose, CA

 

11/12/77,  Copy of the text of the welcoming statement by Packard [The author is not identified as Packard, but this appears to be the only logical choice, and this statement appears on page one of  the banquet program.] Another  speech is included in the folder, again without identification, but Packard is the obvious speaker. The Congressional Medal of Honor Society selected San Jose as the location for their biennial convention to honor Medal of Honor recipients, and Packard was asked to chair the Host Committee.

 

In his welcoming remarks at the dinner, Packard says that when he served with the Department of Defense he became acquainted with some of the Medal of Honor recipients. “I was deeply proud,” he says, “…to be associated with such a distinguished group of Americans, and I cherish their friendship.

 

“You who hold the nations’s highest honor are carrying on a great tradition. We are pleased to host your convention, and hope that your gallantry and your deeds will continue to serve as an inspiration to all Americans.

 

[The following is Packard’s main speech of the evening.]

 

Packard says “it has been a great privilege for the Bay Area Communities to host the Biennial Convention of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.” And he adds that “…it has been a special privilege and pleasure for me to be the Honorary Chairman of the Host Committee.”

 

Noting that one of the Society’s stated purposes is to ‘inspire and stimulate our youth to become worthy citizens of our country,’ Packard says, “I would like to take the next few moments to reflect on that purpose, particularly as it relates to your own significant accomplishments.”

 

“Certainly the strength of character, the deep devotion to honor and duty, which qualified each of you to wear the Congressional Medal of Honor have also rendered you among the most worthy citizens of our country.

And they have set some high and noble standards for the young people of America. This is why I am particularly pleased that you have chosen the Bay Area for your convention. Your presence here this week will, indeed, inspire the youth of our community to become worthy citizens of our country.”

 

I think a good case can be made that the personal strengths of character that each of you has exhibited at the highest level are also the very some personal qualities that have been exhibited, time and time again, by thousands of Americans in their quest to make our young Republic the greatest country in the history of the world.

 

“The men and women who created and nurtured the original colonies, and who served their country in the Revolutionary War, had a large measure individual initiative, individual ingenuity, self reliance and courage – the same kind of personal qualities each of you has demonstrated so well in your ultimate challenge. These same qualities were exhibited, as well, in other times of peril -–in the War of 1812, in the Civil War on both sides of the line, and of course in the wars of our time.”

 

Packard says that such “unusual qualities of mind and spirit” were amply demonstrated as well “by the men and women who won the West, who built our great industries of agriculture, mining, transportation and manufacturing, who nurtured our democratic institutions.”

 

“I think these unusual personal qualities which each of you has exhibited in the highest degree have likewise been the essential elements of excellence, responsible for the greatness of America, demonstrated to a greater or lesser degree at all levels of our society since the early days of the Republic.

 

“I am troubled, therefore, by a very disturbing trend that has appeared and has been gaining strength during the past few decades. This trend has been away from individual initiative, individual ingenuity, self reliance and courage, and toward an attitude of dependence on the Government – an attitude that ‘the world owes me a living whether I have earned it or not.’

 

“This shift from a strong commitment to self reliance to one of dependence is already significant, it is increasing, and I believe it is a real and serious threat to the future of America. We see this shifting attitude reflected in both local and national politics. We see it growing in our schools and colleges. It has subverted the legitimate goals of our equal opportunity programs, and even business and industry – supposedly the paragons of self reliance – are running to Uncle Sam to solve the problems they should be solving for themselves.

 

“The challenge to all of us is to re-commit ourselves to those personal qualities, those strengths of character, that have made America great. This is why the presence of you distinguished men and your families in our community has been so gratifying and heartwarming. It has served as an important and timely reminder that the qualities you have so amply demonstrated in the past – individual initiative, individual ingenuity, self reliance and courage – are, in fact, the fundamental strengths of America and our hope for the future.

I am sure the presence of this convention of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society has served in no small way ‘to inspire not only the youth but all people of our community to become more worthy citizens of our country.’

 

“We thank you for coming here.”

 

11/12/77, Copy of printed program for the Biennial Banquet

11/12/77, Copy of letter sized statement explaining the Medal of Honor

11/12/77, 5” x 7” printed statement of what the Medal of Honor is

11/12/77, Printed invitation to the Banquet as being extended by David Packard

11/12/77, Copy of a letter from Packard written to each Medal of Honor Recipient inviting them to attend the Convocation.

11/12/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to individual HP employees inviting them to the Banquet

11/12/77, Copy of membership Roster of Congressional Medal of Honor Society

11/12/77, Copy of list of what appears to be a list of business people attendees

 

11/2/76, Copy of a letter to Ronald R, James, CEO San Jose Chamber of Commerce, from Carlos C. Ogden, President , Congressional Medal of Honor Society, accepting San Jose’s offer to host the 1977 Convention

1/20/77, Letter to Packard from Ronald James saying they would like Packard to chair the Host Committee

3/14/77, Letter to Packard from Carlos Ogden, saying they are pleased that Packard will be the Committee Host

3/15/77, Copy of a letter from Carlos C. Ogden, President  of the Society, to Governor Ronald Reagan, inviting him and his wife to the Banquet

3/23/77, Copy of a letter to Carlos Ogden from Helene von Damm, Reagan’s Administrative Assistant, saying it is too early to commit to attendance by the Governor

4/1/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Carlos Ogden saying he would be pleased to serve as chair of the Bay Area Host Committee

4/23/77, Letter to Packard from Carlos Ogden saying they appreciate Packard’s willingness to serve as Host

6/23/77,  Letter to Packard from Carlos Ogden covering details of convention plans

7/7/77, Letter to Packard from Ronald James suggesting a luncheon meeting to discuss plans

8/19/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Halsey C. Burke, asking him to join with Packard in on the Host Committee

8/23/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lt. Col. Charles A. Harris asking him to assist the Chairman of the Community Relations Committee

8/24/77, Letter to Packard from Halsey Burke saying he would be pleased to chair the Banquet Committee

8/24/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ray J. Rosendin asking him to assist the Chairman of the Community Relations Committee

9/21/77, Letter to Packard from John J. Brennan offering to provide photographic services for the convention

9/22/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ronald R. James transmitting the above letter and asking him to reply

9/26/77, Letter to Packard from Kenneth R. Johnson, President Farms Co., Inc, asking who he may contact regarding landscaping services at the HP plant on Trimble Ave., and saying that he will help with the convention

10/3/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Kenneth R. Johnson, saying he is glad Mr. Johnson will help with the convention and expressing the hope he will buy a table for $500. Packard also says he will ask HP people to contact him about landscaping

10/5/77, Copy of a letter  from Halsey Burke to Gordon Levy, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, expressing concerns about the convention budget

10/5/77, Copy of a letter to Packard from Halsey Burke attaching the above letter and discussing his budget concerns

10/6/77, Copy of a letter from Carlos Ogden to Host Directors giving the dates of two meetings he says Packard has set to discuss convention plans

9/15/77, Letter to Packard from Robert C. Wilson saying he was sorry he missed a meeting but will be happy to help

10/6/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert C. Wilson saying attending the meeting was not important, but it would be good if he could buy one or two tables

9/8/77, Copy of a letter to President Gerald R. Ford from Packard asking if he could attend the Banquet and speak to the guests

10/10/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he is delighted to hear the General will be able to attend the convention banquet

Copy of a check from Packard and payable to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in the amount of $500.00

10/18/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to Gen. George C. Brown inviting him to stay at their home during his visit here and possibly go to Merced for some duck hunting

10/25/77, Letter to Packard from Gen. Brown thanking Packard for the invitation but saying he must get back to Washington

11/14/77, Letter to Packard from Halsey Burke saying he enjoyed working with Packard on the convention. He also says that he heard many appreciative comments form the veterans – many saying this had been the best convention they had attended.

11/14/77, Letter to Packard from J. H. Doolettle, thanking all for their many kindnesses and courtesies

11/15/77, Handwritten letter to Packard from Janet Gray Hayes, Mayor of San Jose, thanking him for the dinner reservations and saying they very much enjoyed the dinner. She asks for a copy of Jimmy Stewart’s speech if this could be possible.

11/15/77,  Letter to Packard from Major James A. Taylor, thanking him for the outstanding convention

11/19/77, Letter to Packard from Carlos C. Ogden thanking him for his work on the convention and especially his dinner remarks

11/23/77, Letter to Packard from William R. Lawley, Jr. expressing appreciation for the outstanding convention

11/25/77, Letter to Packard from Charles W. Davis, from the Medal of Honor Society, expressing appreciation for Packard’s work. He says they feel honored that Packard accepted the chairmanship.

11/29/77, Handwritten letter to Packard from Edward and Mardelle Ingman, thanking Packard for his hard work as chairman of the convention, and saying it was so well planned and they appreciated it.

11/28/77, Handwritten note to Packard from Robert E. Gerstung thanking him for the convention where they were ‘treated royally’

11/28/77, Handwritten note to Packard from Bob and Francis Nett, saying they have ‘so many happy memories’ of the convention

11/28/77, Handwritten note to Packard from Mr. and Mrs. J. Drowley expressing appreciation for the convention

11/30/77, Letter to Packard from Michael J. Daly expressing appreciation for his ‘crucial help’ and ‘tremendous effort’ in planning such an affair

11/29/77, Note to Packard from Robert E. Bush saying they appreciated all hard work which made the convention a ‘tremendous success

12/1/77, Letter to Packard from John D. Hawk, expressing appreciation for the work of the many people who arranged the convention

12/1/77, Handwritten note to Packard from Bill and Dorothy Johnston saying they very much appreciated the arrangements for the convention

12/7/77, Letter to Packard from Gino J. Merli describing the convention as ‘perfection’

12/9/77, Handwritten note to Packard from Pappy Boyington who says he and his wife ‘join the multitude of loyal Americans who salute you for all your time, effort and expense’ expended for the convention. He makes particular note of Packard’s speech which was ‘so sincere – and so true’

12/11/77, Letter Packard from Mitchell Paige, expressing appreciation for the convention

12/19/77, Report to all Directors from Halsey Burke, Finance Chairman, giving a final report on the convention finances. They collected $67,530, spent $58,746, and sent the Society $8,783

1/3/78, Handwritten note to Packard from Mr. and Mrs. W. J. Crawford, thanking the committees for the hours spent in making the convention ‘such a grand success’

Undated, Handwritten note to Packard from Don Ross thanking him for his help and guidance in making this convention ‘the best meeting we’ve ever had’

Undated, Handwritten note to Packard from Herbert and Verna Burr thanking him for making possible the convention were they had ‘a delightful time’

Undated, Handwritten note to Packard from Maj. Gen. And Mrs. George L. Mabry Jr. thanking him for the convention

Undated, Newspaper clipping describing the convention and the Veterans Day Parade

 

 

Box 4, Folder 20 – General Speeches

 

November 17, 1977, Inventory Management and Control, Purchasing Management Association, South Bay Chapter, Palo Alto, CA

 

 

11/17/77, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech on Inventory Management and Control

 

Packard describes the subject matter as “complex,” adding that he plans to confine his remarks to “the management of inventories in a manufacturing industry.

 

“To begin with,” he says, “I think it would be useful to remind ourselves that there are three basic inventory categories in almost every manufacturing industry – the raw material or component side, the work-in-progress area, and the finished goods – and each of these has different problems. It is immediately apparent, therefore, that inventory concerns the purchasing manager, the manufacturing manager, and the marketing manager, and as a result you have a great many different inputs into inventory management/control. Thus, it is most important to keep in mind that the inventory management/control problem really must be considered as one part of overall asset management. Sometimes the people who have responsibility for a specific area, such as purchasing or manufacturing, may not appreciate that inventory management involves many other people in the organization.”

 

While we must keep the various details of the inventory problem in mind, Packard says that “…it is very important that we keep the broader perspective in mind. Inventory, along with accounts receivable and cash or cash equivalents, makes up the current assets of a company. These are offset by accounts payable and by short-term notes. Together these items determine the working capital of the organization. Since no company, at least none that I have encountered yet, has unlimited resources, one of the overall aspects of inventory management is to minimize the working capital that is needed to support each dollar of sales. We must strive to do this, while at the same time taking actions which will maximize the profits for each dollar of sales.

 

“In the final analysis,” he says, “…in a growth industry such as electronics, we have to generate a rate of return on assets which is roughly equal to our sales growth rate. If we don’t do this, things will get out of balance and we will find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The management of return on assets is an essential element in maintaining the viability of your company in the long term. Control of inventories is one of the variables, one of the ways you can have an impact on the control of assets – not only controlling the level, but also controlling the rate of return. A higher inventory is going to increase your costs and therefore tend to reduce your rate of return. Higher inventories, of course, require more capital, as well.”

 

Packard describes a case example to illustrate the importance of managing inventories and what can be done when problems arise. “It is a situation we experienced at our company over the past ten years, and I think the best way to approach this is to look at our level and growth rate of sales year-to-year, the corresponding growth of inventory in those years, and, most importantly, the percentage relationship between inventory and sales.

 

“For many years,” he says, “ [HP] had been maintaining a total inventory in the range of 20 percent of our sales dollar. – or a turnover of roughly five times a year if you want to put it in those terms. That was the situation in 1967 when we had sales of $245 million, and an inventory of $52 million which represented 21 percent of sales. In 1968 sales grew 11 percent and inventory 12 percent, so we were retaining a reasonable balance, and our ratio of inventory to sales stayed at about 21 percent.”

 

Packard says things began to slip in 1969 when sales grew 19 percent and inventories by 33 percent. He then gives the numbers for the next three years:

In 1970 sales up 7 %, inventories up 11 %

In 1971 sales up 3 %, inventories up 6 %, with the ratio of inventories to sales rising to 24 %.

In 1972 sales rose 28%, inventories rose 30 %, with the inventory/sales ratio edging up to 25 %.

 

“In 1973,” he says, “we had a substantial increase of 38% in sales, but inventories more than kept pace by increasing 59 percent. By that time inventories had grown to the point where they represented 29 percent of our annual sales volume, and we were faced with a very serious problem of financing this very large inventory build-up. The situation was compounded by the fact that we were experiencing a growth in accounts receivable, which is the other aspect of current assets.

 

“Now, we were aware that these inventories were growing, and we had been reviewing the situation with our division manages year after year. I can assure you that we heard just about every excuse in the book for the situation. One we heard repeatedly was ‘Our business is changing, and we can’t do this job right if our inventories don’t go up.’

 

Packard says, “We finally reached the point, late in 1973, where it looked as though we were going to have to go out in the market for some long-term debt – something we had never done before. Since this was such a major departure from our ‘pay-as-you-go’ policy at HP, I and some of the rest of our people got to thinking about the situation and we concluded that we had just botched up the job ourselves. We had failed to control assets, including inventory, in the way they should have been controlled. Because of the seriousness of the matter, I paid a visit to nearly every one of our divisions, worldwide, and gave them a lecture on the importance of controlling inventories and accounts receivable. I emphasized that they had to think about some things in addition to what was going on in their own department and divisions. I’ll tell you, the response was impressive.

 

“We got the whole team working on the problem We improved our planning. We regained better control of the detail of our inventories. We established, I think, a closed cooperation with our suppliers – a very important responsibility. We found that we could live with a smaller margin of safety. To give you just one specific, in the area of work-in-progress we had felt that we could save some money by putting sub-assemblies together in larger quantities and perhaps have a little more responsiveness in the final assembly stage. We discovered, however, that while we may have improved our costs to some extent, in some areas this practice had a serious impact on our total inventories.

 

“At this point, I think it is worth mentioning that it is important to minimize the changes. There is nothing worse than starting in one direction and then altering your course. Again it gets back to planning and total commitment. No one single action will be effective in doing the job the way it ought to be done. No one person will be responsible.

 

“Concluding his story of HP’s experience, Packard says that “Because of an outstanding effort by a very large number of people throughout the organization in 1974, our inventories increased by only 3 percent in comparison with a 34 percent increase in sales. This brought our inventory/sales ratio down to 22 percent. A year later we were back to our traditional ratio of 21 percent, as sales increased 11 percent while inventories were held to a 5 percent increase. This kind of performance, I am glad to report, has continued through 1976 and 1977.”

 

As he looks back at the situation he has described above, Packard says that “If the ratio that existed between inventory and sales in 1973 still persisted today, [in 1977],it would have required $90 million more in inventory than we have at this particular time. That gives you some idea of the magnitude of the impact that this kind of overall control can have.”

 

Packard says the message he would like to get over is that controlling inventories is a very important matter. “If we had been smart enough, or wise enough, or energetic enough to have recognized this and done something about it back in the early 1970s, we would have saved our suppliers and our company some difficulty. The responsibility of inventory control goes beyond individual problems. It is not the isolated job of one person, or one department. It extends into almost every aspect of your organization, and involves almost everyone – purchasing, manufacturing, and marketing. The marketing people, for example, have to realize that they can’t always have the inventory of finished goods they’d like for immediate delivery, and they have to recognize that good planning is essential.”

 

Packard discusses some external factors which add to the complexity of inventory control. “One of these factors,” he says, “is that when we are operating in an environment of very high utilization of capacity by suppliers, it makes the flow of components and materials more difficult to control. Hence, it encourages such things as double-ordering and larger inventories that might be avoidable otherwise.

 

“Inflation also is a problem as you know. Most of the thinking in our company about inventories was developed and then carried forward from the period of the fifties and sixties when inflation was not a significant problem. When we got into double-digit inflation a couple of years ago, we didn’t recognize it but there is one aspect here that is very important. It brought about re-thinking of the ‘last-in-first-out’ handling of inventory costs.” And he tells of going to Brazil, and talking to a business manager there. He asked the man how he dealt with inflation running around 100 percent a year. Packard reports the man as saying, ‘It’s very simple. If you are in the merchandising business,  you buy your Christmas inventories in January the year ahead of Christmas. If you do that you’re in pretty good shape.’ “So,” Packard concludes, “sometimes these external influences will encourage you to do things that you wouldn’t possible think about doing otherwise.

 

“That brings me,” he says, “to the final point I want to make. Inventory control is a complex and important job but it simply cannot be done by formula or by computer procedure. Computer procedures will help you, and in fact there are many aids available to you in planning and measuring your appropriate levels and in determining where you are. But, if the job of managing inventories is going to be done the way it should be done, it’s going to require imagination and hard work and dedication on all levels. The final objective, for anyone who has anything to do with inventories, has to be to take every step possible to keep the profits up and the inventories down. It’s just as simple as that.”

 

11/17/77, Several 3×5” cards with Packard’s notes handwritten thereon with ideas he was putting together for the above speech

11/17/77, two handwritten pages of statistics Packard wrote down listing sales and inventory changes over the years 1967 to 1976

11/17/77, Printed announcement describing the evening’s activities and speakers as sent out by the South Bay Group of the Purchasing Management Association of Northern California

11/17/77, Printed program for the evening

7/5/77, Internal HP memorandum to Packard from John Nicolic, Purchasing Department, inviting Bill and Dave to their dinner meeting when various speakers will discuss inventory control considerations

7/18/77, Copy of internal HP memorandum to Packard from John Nicolic , saying the Purchasing Association is delighted that Packard will join them and the other speakers at their dinner meeting

9/28/77, Memorandum to Packard from John Nicolic giving details about the dinner meeting. Two notes from other HP employees are attached asking for copies of Packard’s speech..

11/7/77, Memorandum to Packard from John Nicolic saying, among other details about the dinner, that registration exceeds 600 people

11/21/77, Letter to Packard from Donald Teitzke, a consultant, attaching a copy of a speech given by himself titled, Inventory Management and the Accountant

11/25/77, Copy of a letter to Packard from Ray Eaton, Purchasing Manager, Bard-Parker, thanking him for speaking at the dinner, and. attaching several quotations about management

11/22/77, Memorandum from John Nicolic to Packard thanking him for speaking at their seminar and suggesting the possibility of another on the state income tax of California

12/20/77, Copy of a letter from Packard to John Nicolic saying a seminar on the inventory tax might better be held when and if it comes up for consideration.

Undated, Three pages of typewritten jokes – probably source material for Packard

Undated, Typewritten listing of attendees to the dinner seminar

 

Box 4, Folder 9 – General Speeches

2/17/78,Letter to Packard from James McDowell,  saying they were sorry he was unable to make the Awards dinner in December and enclosing  a program and their newsletter

5/31/78, Letter to Packard from Vincent Draddy saying that an invitation to attend the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame dedication is on its way to Packard and he hopes Packard will be able to attend.

8/15/78, Letter to Packard from William Spencer giving Packard some information on donations to the Hall of Fame endowment  fund received thus far

8/24/78, Copy of a letter from Packard to William Spencer, saying he cannot do anything this year but will consider the request in the future.

10/27/78, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell of the Foundation, inviting him to the 21st Annual Foundation Dinner. A note written thereon says “no.”

11/1/78, Letter to Packard from Alfred Cinelli of the Northern California chapter of the Football Foundation, inviting Packard to the Nineteenth Annual Awards Dinner. A handwritten notation thereon says. ”no.”

Box 4, Folder 21 – General Speeches

 

September 21, 1978, 35^th Anniversary of the American Electronics Association

 

9/21/78, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says that “The best tribute to the contribution that AEA has made to the electronics industry in America is the fact that it has steadily grown from a very modest beginning thirty-five years ago to become the largest and most effective trade association for the industry.

 

Packard traces the history back to its beginning in 1943, during the war, with 25 member firms – 13 in the north and 12 in the south. He says “It was organized as the West Coast Electronics Manufacturing Association to deal with the current problems of that time. All of the electronics firms at that time were involved in production for the war effort, and there were labor supply problems keeping employees from being drafted. Procurement problems were severe and the controls needed for the war production effort created many common problems for our young

industry.”

 

Packard says he doesn’t recall that those electronics companies in the north were as concerned about [controls] as those in the south…. ”electronics firms in the Bay Area had for the most part found a special niche for themselves.

 

“Most of the discussions that led to the formation of the Northern California Division of WCEMA reflected concern about day to day problems dealing with government regulations rather than how to get more business out of Washington.”

 

“The electronics industry did survive on the West Coast, but then there were problems of transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. However, by 1950 there were 50 members, by 1955 over 200, and today nearly 1000 member firms and 200 associate members.”

 

Packard reviews what he calls the “unique” history of Bay Area electronics.

 

“Electronics began as wireless telegraphy with the transmission of a message a mile and a half through the air by Marconi in 1895. Interest in this new science spread rapidly and attracted the attention of several young men in San Francisco. Some of these wireless amateurs put a spark transmitter on the light ship, San Francisco, which was stationed off the Golden Gate, and a receiver in the Cliff House on the beach.  And, in 1899, only four years after Marconi’s demonstration of wireless, a message was sent from the light ship to shore announcing the arrival of the troop ship ‘Sherman’, bringing troops home to San Francisco from the Spanish American War.

 

“By 1904 the first major wireless station was built at Mare Island, and by 1908 there were Naval wireless stations all along the coast and up to Alaska.

 

“Somehow this new science attracted a group of unusually talented young men, often in their teens. In 1909 Henry Dickow started the San Francisco Radio Club. He was then 12 years old.

 

“The following year, 1910, another young man still in his teens, named Ralph Heintz, established the first wireless communication from an airplane to the ground.

 

“Later on we hear about Charlie Litton, age 11, with his own ham shack in 1915.

 

“And there was another young man, age 17, with a spark gap transmitter and a receiver consisting of a detecter and a one tube amplifier on the Stanford Campus in 1917. His name was Fred Terman.

 

“I have skipped an important chapter that involved another young man, just graduated from Stanford, named Cy Elwell. He was engaged to investigate some new developments in wireless and in the course of this investigation learned about the development of the Poulsen arc in Denmark. On his own he went to Denmark, obtained the rights for the arc along with several models. He returned to San Francisco, raised some money including, it is reported, $500 from David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford, and founded the Federal Telegraph company.

 

“The Poulsen arc made voice transmission by wireless possible, and the Federal Telegraph Company became a dominant factor in this young industry. Federal attracted many bright young men to its ranks including Leonard Fuller, Harold Elliott, Charlie Litton, Frederick Kolster and many others who became prominent as the Bay Area electronics industry developed.

 

“Lee de  Forest came to work for Federal in Palo Alto in July of 1911. His vacuum tube had been patented in 1907 but was not yet a practical device. He was provided with a laboratory in Palo Alto and some good technical support and demonstrated a vacuum tube amplifier in 1912 and an oscillator in 1913.”

 

Packard explains that it would be some time before the vacuum replaced the Poulsen arc for high power transmitters. Federal continued through World War I to produce arc transmitters. Their greatest achievement in this field came in 1918 when the Navy ordered two 1000 kw arcs for a wireless station in France.

 

“To give you an idea of the magnitude of  the magnitude of this job, the magnets for these arcs weighed 85 tons. You would be interested to know that the man who had the job of installing those transmitters is in the audience tonight. He is Harold Buttner.

 

“De Forest’s vacuum tube was first adopted by the telephone company and made cross country telephones a reality by 1915.

 

“In 1917 a man names Jensen invented the dynamic loud speaker and the Magnavox Company was founded that year in Oakland. Two years later Magnavox provided the first public address system used to address a mass audience. It was September 19, 1919 that President Wilson addressed an audience in San Diego, estimated to be 50,000 people, over Magnavox speakers.

 

“A man named Frederick Kolster joined Federal after the war and is credited with the development of the radio direction finder.

 

“In 1921 Ralph Heintz founded Heintz and Kaufman. This firm built several broadcasting stations in the early twenties and then went on to pioneer in the field of aircraft radio.

 

“As you can now judge, many of the roots of the Bay Area electronics industry were established at or around the Federal Telegraph Company. The University of California and Stanford also contributed in various ways from the very beginning.

 

“In 1924 when the radio industry was beginning to boom, a radio communication laboratory was established at Stanford and in 1925, Fred Terman was put in charge. From that time on Fred Terman’s influence on the development of the electronics industry has grown to exceed that of any other individual from those early days at Stanford until the present day.

 

“But the radio market was a national market, and some of the pioneering firms moved East, Magnavox to Chicago and Federal to New Jersey. GE and RCA and other Eastern firms became leaders in this new radio industry.

 

“In the early thirties a few electronics firms had survived this exodus to the East and a few new firms had been established.

 

“Charlie Litton decided not to go east in 1932 with Federal and started his own company in Redwood City that year.

 

“In 1934 Bill Eitel and Jack McCullough left Heintz and Kaufman to start Eimac. They were a success from the beginning making transmitting tubes for radio amateurs, but as I recall, they had only about 40 people in their company by 1940.

 

“Dalmo Victor, which had been founded in 1921 by a young man named Tim Moseley, then only 19 years old, stayed in San Francisco through the 1930s and built airborne radar antennas during the war. Alex Poniatoff, who was with Dalmo at this time, had a key role in the beginnings of Ampex.

 

“John Kaar, one of Fred Terman’s students, started a company in Palo Alto in 1936 to make two way radio equipment.

 

“A few years earlier Gerhard Fisher established a company to make radio frequency pipe locators.

 

“During the 1930s a man named Philo Farnsworth had a laboratory on Green Street in San Francisco where he developed an all electronic television camera.

 

“And it was in this environment that Bill Hewlett and I started the Hewlett-Packard Company in 1939.

 

“There was further exodus to the East during the next few years. Farnsworth moved East to exploit his new television equipment. Ralph Heintz went to Cleveland to establish the Jack Heintz Company. Charlie Litton was called back East to help ITT with a large plant to build magnetrons.

 

“And as a final blow to the Bay Area electronics industry, Fred Terman was called back to Harvard to establish the radio research laboratory for the war effort.

 

“And to top it off, Bill Hewlett was called into the service, and I was left to run the Company.

 

“But those who were left had ample challenge, and we developed a close personal relationship working together to do the best we could in our respective roles for the war effort.

 

“In a sense, WCEMA simply formalized an already existing close and personal relationship among the Bay Area electronics firms and enabled us to join forces more effectively with our counterparts in the south.

 

“It was not long after WCEMA was organized that the war ended, and we directed our attention to post war problems.

 

“Fortunately, Fred Terman returned to Stanford and strengthened the school of engineering in both research and teaching and his influence continued to increase in importance for us all.

 

“Russell Varian and his associates had invented the klystron at Stanford just before the war, but this work too was transferred to the Sperry Gyroscope Company in the East, but after the war Russ and his associates returned to California and established the Varian Associates in 1948.

 

“SRI was established in 1946 and had a large effort in electronics.

 

“And by 1948 Ampex had perfected the magnetic tape recorder.

 

“I don’t recall the immediate post war period as one of any great concern about the future, but one of great excitement with the return of all of this activity in electronics to the Bay Area.

 

“Our Company had reached a peak of about 200 employees during the war. We dropped back to just over 100 in 1947, but we spent the next few years trying to build for the future, and this was the goal we shared together with the other electronics firms around us.

 

“WCEMA was an important factor during the critical years after the War. The Association provided an excellent forum for communication and from which to deal with common problems.

 

“In the early 1950s the industry began to move ahead at an accelerated pace. There were 147 member companies in 1953, and twice that many ten years later.

 

“The story of our electronics industry in the last two decades is familiar to you – in fact, it is the story of you who are here tonight.”

 

Having chronicled the evolution of the electronics industry in the Bay Area, Packard looks at what he believes were the “key factors” that fostered  this phenomenal development.

 

“First and foremost,” he says, “we have been living and working in an era which has seen wave after wave of new electronic technology. First the Poulsen arc which made voice transmission possible. Then the vacuum tube which opened the door to the radio industry. Then there was television followed by new high frequency technology: the klystron, the magnetron and traveling wave tubes.

 

“Solid state electronics followed, and lasers, and now large scale integrated circuits.

 

“Somewhat in parallel, computer technology came along with its development both dependent on and supporting other electronics technology.

 

“New technology provided unusual opportunities for enterprising people to establish new business ventures in electronics. This is not a recent phenomenon – it began back at the turn of the century, but it has expanded to unpredicted levels in recent years.

 

“More often than not firms that had been founded on earlier technology were not able to adapt to new technology as it came along. It was not GE or Raytheon or Sperry that fully exploited the klystron development, rather it was a new firm founded by the inventor, Russ Varian.

 

“There were many firms which developed extensive experience in high fidelity recording and audio systems; yet it took a new team at Ampex to develop magnetic tape equipment. As solid state electronics came along, newly created firms often outperformed older established companies.

 

“The industry will not continue to expand and prosper for many years without new areas of electronics technology being discovered. In the long run, if new electronics technology dries up, the industry will become mature and it will lose much of its excitement and much of its opportunity.

 

“For this reason, I believe it is essential for the industry to make a much stronger commitment to basic research and development. No one can predict where the opportunities may be, but at the same time, we will never find out if we do not make the effort.

 

“If we are to remain competitive with Japanese and European electronics companies, we have to stay ahead in research and development. If we get in trouble in this area, it won’t help to ask Washington to bail us out. I hope the AEA keeps this issue high on its list of priorities.

 

“Another key factor in the successful growth of our industry has been the availability of high risk capital. This again is not a new factor for risk capital was available in the Bay Area for Cy Elwell to found the Federal Telegraph company. Even in the middle of the depression of the 1930s Philo Farnsworth found enough risk capital in San Francisco to finance his television research and development.

 

“Some of us started our companies on a shoestring, but that perhaps has been the exception, and anyway, it did not require much money to start a firm in 1939.

 

“In recent years the facilities necessary for solid state technology and large scale integrated circuits have become very expensive and the availability of risk capital in the future will be an important determinant in the establishment of new electronics companies.”

 

Packard says he is aware that the AEA has taken an active role regarding the tax debate in Washington, and he hopes this effort will continue. “…it is essential,” he says, “for electronics and other high technology industries that capital gains taxes be liberalized to increase the availability of risk capital.”

 

Packard talks about government rules and regulations and says that when WCEMA was founded they did have some problems with the bureaucracy, but “the Government people we dealt with in those days tried to be helpful. We had a common objective – to help win the war. Often the officials who called on us would go back and plead our case in Washington. There was none of the adversary attitude between business and government that has developed in recent years. We understood that there had to be allocations of manpower, materials and other resources. Fortunately, there was a level of wisdom in Washington in those days which understood that detailed decisions could not be made at that level without creating chaos in the economy. A limited number of critical materials were allocated, a relatively simple system of priorities established, but industry was given considerable latitude to get the job done in the most efficient way possible.”

 

“Working together we developed plans to build up our production to meet the needs as they actually developed, and the government provided a way for us to obtain the material and manpower. From then on until the war ended, there were no serious problems with electronic instruments.

 

“It is too bad the bureaucrats in Washington today have not learned that lesson. Even a small industry like ours could not be managed in detail from Washington in 1942, yet they are trying to do that today for our large energy related industries, and it simply results in chaos.

 

Packard says he believes many legislators are beginning to realize that something is wrong with having so many regulations and regulating agencies. And he says he hopes the AEA “will continue to take  strong role working with the Congress and the bureaucracy on these matters. Perhaps they will learn a lesson they should have learned thirty-five years ago.”

 

Packard says “It has been…a very gratifying experience to have been involved in this great adventure of the electronics industry as it has unfolded over these last thirty-five years.

 

“No one…can know for sure what the future holds for an industry like ours nor for our individual companies. We clearly can not all continue to grow at a rate of 20% a year forever. Some will fall by the wayside.

 

“If our industry can maintain its momentum in research and development and if we can convince big brother in Washington to leave us alone and let us do our job, I believe the future course of the electronics industry will continue for many years ahead in the exciting pattern of the three and a half decades of history we are celebrating here tonight.”

 

9/21/78, Printed invitation to the AEA 35^th Anniversary Celebration dinner

9/21/78, Typewritten document summarizing with a short paragraph of AEA and electronics industry history for each year 1945 through 1962

9/21/78, Another historical record of AEA/industry history over the years 1945 to1963

5/25/78, Letter to Packard from E. E. Ferrey AEA President, asking Packard to address the Annual Meeting marking the 35^th Anniversary

6/7/78, Copy of a letter from Packard to E. E. Ferrey agreeing to speak at the Annual Meeting

7/27/78, Letter to Packard from E. E. Ferrey giving details of the dinner

8/8/78, HP internal memorandum to Packard from Dave Kirby, PR Director, saying AEA would like a short description of Packard’s speech to give to the press

8/11/78, Copy of a letter to Kirby from Packard giving the following statement for AEA pre-meeting publicity:

 

“The West Coast was one of the important spawning grounds for the electronic industry going back to the early decades of this century. Those of us who have been involved in this activity since the late 1930s have been part of one of the great industrial revolutions of this era. Since the mid-1960s we have seen an unusual change in attitudes in the American Society. These are being reflected in governmental attitudes and actions and there is great concern that the environment for the electronic industry on the West Coast, indeed through the country, may become so hostile as to seriously limit the opportunities of our industry. It is important that these trends be recognized because there is no fundamental reason why the future for our industry should be less attractive, or less exciting, than our past.”

 

9/19/78, Letter to Packard from E. E. Ferrey sending AEA and industry background material. He also mentions some 700 people are signed up to come to the dinner.

9/27/78, Letter to Packard from E. E. Ferrey thanking him for speaking at the dinner and adding that ‘Your personal support, and the continuing assistance of other HP executives, is highly valued by AEA. We are pleased to have your good counsel and strong leadership on key issues in Washington.’

7/21/78, Copy of AEA publication, Update, which announces Packard as the speaker at the anniversary meeting in September

9/22/78, Copy of a newspaper clipping from the Peninsula Business, covering Packard’s speech

September, 1978, Copy of the IEEE publication, Grid

 

 

Box 4, Folder 22 – General Speeches

 

October 10, 1978, Statement Before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, Washington D. C.

 

10/10/78, Copy of text of Packard’s prepared statement presented to the Committee

 

Packard says the subject of export control policy is of “great importance” to the U.S., not only because of  the effect abroad, but also the effect they have on our balance of payments, inflation and economic growth.

 

He states that HP, has sales of $1.6 billion, about 50% of which are outside the U.S. “We estimate,” he says, “that over 8,500 of our employees in this country owe their livelihood to our international business.”

 

Packard tells the Committee that he will direct his remarks to three areas: “first, the traditional use of export constraints for national security and foreign policy purposes with respect to the Communist countries; second,…their use for foreign policy purposes with respect to other countries; and lastly, …some recommendations on how an improved trade policy might be achieved.”

 

Export Constraints with Respect to the Communist Countries

 

Packard says he assumes there is general agreement “that important national security aspects take precedence over the general U.S. policy to support and encourage trade on a world wide basis. In the case of the USSR and the PRC,” he says, “export controls for national security purposes have been based largely on the fact that the United States has a considerable technical superiority in terms of military weapons capabilities.”

 

He describes the range of opinion as to “how far we should go in controlling export of high technology products to the USSR and the PRC,”  — from people who feel we should take a “hard line” restricting the export of all such products, to those who would relax controls, feeling the products could likely be obtained elsewhere anyway.

 

Packard’s opinion is that export of high technology products such as computers “is not as serious as it is often made out to be. In some cases, the Soviets can obtain comparable equipment through commercial channels from other countries. If this proves difficult they can always obtain a sample or two including key technical information through other means.” He agrees with a policy that would “make it more difficult for the Soviets to obtain key technical products and knowledge, but we should understand,” he adds, “that…is all we are able to do.”

 

Packard also points out that the USSR has “very high technical capabilities. Over the years their scientists have made many contributions to the advancement of knowledge, and most basic technical information not already in the Soviet Union is readily available to their scientists from Western sources, through publications, conferences, and private exchanges among scientists.”

 

Looking at economic considerations and their possible effect on export controls, Packard feels this area should have a “high priority. U.S. exports support many jobs here at home, and inflation is fueled by our inability to keep our exports and imports in better balance. I believe” he says, “encouraging trade in peaceful goods and services with [Communist countries] is an important way to increase U.S. jobs and fight inflation.”

 

However, Packard feels that we have not been able to develop our trade with Communist countries to “anywhere near its real potential. Some of the reasons for this are the withholding of ‘most favored nation’ treatment from the USSR and restrictions placed on export credits.” Both placed at the direction of Congress, he points out.

 

Packard tells the Committee that he believes the export policies of the U.S. have been a “counter-productive influence on Soviet attitudes and actions.

 

“There is no doubt that our constraints have caused a loss of export business for the United States….There has clearly been an economic cost to the use of these constraints in terms of lost jobs and further deterioration in our balance of trade.”

 

And “there is another cost,” he says, “one of considerable importance to our national interest. This is the fact that our use of these constraints has clearly raised the level of Soviet mistrust and encouraged attitudes of hostility.

 

“I am quite certain the leaders of the Soviet Union understand our rationale for controlling exports which involve real national security issues. They would do the same thing if they were in a position to do so. However, they clearly resent our attempts to influence matters which they consider to be their own internal affairs.”

 

Packard agrees that while trade among nations may not reduce conflict and avoid war, “trade, by helping keep communications open, encouraging better two-way understanding, and developing personal friendships, may help to reduce tensions and minimize conflicts. For these reasons I believe increased trade in non-strategic goods and services is vitally important and should be kept firmly in mind whenever we apply or consider applying export controls and other constraints to the USSR and the other Communist countries.

 

Export Constraints with Respect to Other Countries

 

Packard turns to “a more generalized consideration of the use of export controls and export credits to influence the policies and behavior of other countries.

 

“Until the present Administration took office little was attempted, outside our relations with the Communist countries, to use export constraints in harness the international activities of U.S. business for foreign policy purposes. However, President Carter, making good his campaign promise to ‘restore the moral authority of this country in the conduct of foreign policy,’ has included use of these constraints in an activist foreign policy with a strong emphasis on human rights.”

 

And Packard adds that Congress has supported and “sometimes even been in advance of the Administration’s efforts to inject a greater moral emphasis into U.S. foreign policy. At the present time, for example, congressionally mandated concern for human rights is expressed in a number of measures including those supporting foreign Assistance, various international financial institutions, the Overseas Private Investment corporation, and Public Law 480.

 

Packard names a number of “restrictions for U.S. foreign and domestic policy purposes that have been placed on U.S. private commercial activities with various Western countries:…the development and implementation of a comprehensive set of anti-boycott measures; further restrictions on the ability of U.S. firms to do business with South Africa; the denial of heavy duty trucks to Libya; the denial of Ex-Im financing for various programs, most notably and recently the long delayed off-again, on-again decision relating to electric generating equipment for an Argentine hydro-electric project; lengthy licensing delays and denials of various transactions to Argentina, Chile, and other countries the Administration has identified as gross human rights violators, etc.”

 

Packard says he does not believe such unilateral restraints are effective in changing policies or the behavior of the target countries. “In fact,” he says “I think about the only thing they can be guaranteed to do is lose business for the United States.”

 

He gives some insights into possible reactions by targeted countries:

 

“In the area of human rights… not all nations agree with our emphasis on personal rights; a number consider economic and social rights more important.”

 

“Our country is not a unique source of supply these days, so once U.S. exports are denied the target country usually can and will obtain comparable products and services elsewhere.”

 

Recommendations

 

Packard says he is pleased to see the recent statement by the President directing ‘…the Departments of  Commerce, State, Defense and Agriculture to take export consequences fully into account when considering the use of export controls for foreign policy purposes.’

“I am convinced that our national interest would be better served with more consistent and more stable trading policies. To work in this direction he suggests that the Executive Branch and Congress “thoughtfully and unemotionally review and provide advice on all policies and policy changes before they are implemented.

 

“I also think,” he says, “that the Congress should consider the damage export constraints can do and face squarely up to its own support of the unilateral use of these devices for foreign policy purposes. After reviewing the problems I think the Congress should include some strong guidelines in the export Administration Act when it comes up for amendment and extension next year.

 

“For example, I think the Act should clearly state the opinion of the Congress that any decision to use export controls for foreign policy purposes should be undertaken only: (a) to support clearly defined major U.S. foreign policy objectives, (b) when based on an adequate amount of factual information, (c)when the likelihood of such unilateral action will cause a desirable change in behavior in the target country, (d) where the commodities cannot be obtained readily from a non-U.S. source, (e) when such action is in harmony with other U.S. actions, (f) when the action is unlikely to adversely affect U.S. business inn other countries, and (g) after full consideration of the potential impact on various aspects of the U.S. economy such as employment, inflation, management attitudes, the balances of trade and payments, etc.”

 

“Finally, I think the Congress should clearly state, as is presently the case with national security transactions, that any export license application undergoing review for foreign policy purposes should be approved or disapproved within 90 days.

 

Conclusion

 

Mr. Chairman, in concluding let me say again that I’ve appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss the problems I see in using export constraints for foreign policy purposes. The use of such constraints is an important and complex subject that deserves careful, thoughtful consideration and one which should be insulated from emotional reactions as far as possible.

 

“I believe the essence of the problem is that offering or withholding trade is not an effective way for the United States to influence the behavior of other nations, whether friend or foe. I believe we must eventually accept this as a fact of life and develop and administer our trade policies accordingly.

 

“Mr. Chairman, this concludes my presentation. I thank you land the members of the Committee for your attention. I’ll be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 23 – General Speeches

 

November 16, 1978, Encroachment of Japanese Firms on Today’s Semiconductor and Tomorrow’s Electronics and Computer Industries, South Bay Chapter of the Purchasing Management Association, Palo Alto, CA

 

Packard was asked to join a panel of speakers on this subject. Speaking last, his assignment was to give industry’s viewpoint on the subject of Japanese competition. Packard apparently did not speak from a prepared text. His address was transcribed, and, from this,  a typewritten text was made for distribution to interested parties.

 

11/16/78, Typewritten text prepared from a transcription of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard says that when he spoke to this group a year ago, all the speakers already said what he was going to say. So this time he says he is not going to deliver a prepared speech, “but rather to make some comments on what the other speakers have said.” He says he will start by reviewing “…the development of the relationships between the United States and Japan” adding that, “this [also] involves the relationships between the United States and Europe since the end of World War II.”

 

“At the end of World War II,” he says, “our two principal enemies – Germany and Japan – were nearly completely in a state of devastation, and in the wisdom of our leaders at that time we undertook to provide for the rehabilitation of both of these countries. This involved a substantial commitment of American resources of dollars and manpower, and it was done with the idea that in order to build a stable world for the future we had to bring these two nations back into the community of nations in a way they would be able to participate with the free world and the future development of our joint venture.

 

“In the cases of both Germany and Japan we invested rather substantial amounts of money to help them rehabilitate their industry, to rebuild their country, and we did this because we felt it would be in the best interests not only of the United States, but of benefit to all of the free world.”

 

“This process continued through the 1950s. We undertook to provide for the defense of Japan at that time, and then moving on into the 1960s we became involved in Viet Nam, and toward the end of that decade we were spending 91/2 %  of our Gross National Product on defense. Japan was spending less than 1% of her GNP. We were diverting a very substantial part of our resources to the national security of Japan, and what we thought would be the security of the Asian theater, and of Europe and NATO, etc., and this was a very tremendous burden that Japan and Germany and the other countries did not have.” Packard does point out that there was some benefit to U.S. industry in this U. S. defense effort by providing “a very important and broad base of research and development that really enabled the electronics industry to make the progress that it made through the 1950s  and the 1960s. But it also provided a background from which Japan could begin to build with a substantial degree of  [partnership] …between its government and its industry.”

 

Packard says that during the 1970s the U.S. began to reduce its military commitments which were down to 3% of GNP by 1978 – “…still a substantial burden for our economy,” he says, “and during this period the Japanese were able to concentrate their entire resources toward building up their industry. The effect of this was different in different types of industry – in the case of iron and steel, what it made possible was for the Japanese to have a completely modern facility that was competitive in any sense, whereas we, during this period, had not devoted resources to rebuild our facilities in the steel industry.

 

”As far as automobiles are concerned Packard says that “…the Japanese took advantage of their relatively better allocation of economic resources, and also the fact has been indicated that they had a substantial benefit in terms of cost, as their labor costs during the early part of this period were something like 10% of ours, and this really enabled them to move in on some of those areas such as television, semiconductor receivers, etc., with a good deal of success.”

 

A commitment to quality was also a factor in favor of the Japanese, Packard believes. “[They] were smart enough to make a very firm commitment to quality after the war, and they undertook to design and develop and manufacture products which would meet the highest quality standards of anywhere in the world, and they tried to deal with the requirements of their customers…. The fact they had very close cooperation between industry and government, the fact that they made a substantial commitment, the fact that they had a very important reason to work hard to rebuild their economy, whereas we were sort of the ‘top’ poking along, and did not have a corresponding commitment – I think all of these factors were conducive to the very impressive development that the Japanese economy has made during the last few decades, whether it be in electronics, semiconductors, or in other aspects of their industry.”

 

“Packard says he thinks “…one of the significant factors of our foreign policy during [the post war period] is that we did not have any high priority to relate our foreign policy to our own economic well-being. We were looking primarily during this period toward improving the economy of Japan, toward improving the economy of our Western European allies. Our foreign policy was directed at maintaining Japan as an important ally in the Pacific Theater and corresponding priorities in terms of Europe and NATO.  The fact that our government has not been very helpful in the in the economic field, I think, is in large part due to the fact that there was no particular reason for our government to do so during this period. In terms of foreign policy we simply had things we thought were more important, and, after all, the American free enterprise system was supposed to be self sufficient and self reliant, and not require government assistance….I don’t see that there is any great concern, the statistics you have heard tonight – indicate that American industry, the semiconductor industry, is still doing fairly well on a world-wide basis.”

 

Packard says he thinks “we now have things that are moving in a direction that is eminently more favorable. In the first place, the cost of Japanese labor, relative to United States labor, has changed drastically, partly because of a more rapid rate of inflation in Japan, and changes in the international monetary situation. Costs in Japan now, as we measure from our operation there, are now about 10% less than they are in the United States. They are not quite equal, but are approaching that, whereas six or seven years ago it was a very substantial advantage in terms of costs to the U.S. As a matter of fact, in Germany our costs are now about ten percent higher than the United States, and we can manufacture all the various products here in the U.S. and ship and sell them in Germany or in Europe at a lower cost than we can manufacture in Europe.”

 

“Packard talks about HP sales in Japan. “…this year our business with Japan, our sales from the U.S. to Japan, have increased very substantially, and it is in large part due to the fact that our products now are less costly in Japan. It is also the result of another thing that I think is important for us all to recognize – we have not done a very good job in our selling and marketing efforts in Japan. We are working hard to try and do a better job, and that effort is now paying off, and we are indeed penetrating the market better. We aren’t doing as well as we should do by any means, but this indicates that the combination of more favorable environment and a little more effective effort on our part is resulting in improved sales from the U.S. to Japan.”

 

Packard talks about working relationships with legislators in Washington. “They are trying to do their best for their country and they are very anxious to have help and assistance in doing what will improve the welfare of the country. I think if we would spend a little less time bitching about it, and a little more time trying to help, it would be all to the good….You would be surprised if you knew how much of an effect communication [from] the guy back home has. It’s fine for a Washington representative to call on one of these fellows, but when they begin to get a lot of letters from the individuals they know back home they’ve got to receive them, and they’ve got to take them into consideration, so you’ve got an opportunity to have a substantial influence here, but it has to be done in a thoughtful, constructive way, and I’m sure that whether they be Republicans or Democrats they will try and respond to things which will help our industry, which will help our community, and if we don’t do our job in giving these people some backup we’re going to be the ones that lose.”

 

“As far as trade negotiations are concerned Packard reminds his audience that they must understand that “There has to be a certain amount of trade-offs, and we have had the opportunity to work very closely with the people filing the trade negotiations, and working on them; and I think, all in all, we are going to come out with a pretty good package, but I think you have to understand that there will be trade-offs at the last minute. You can’t expect them to simply look upon our industry as the only industry in the country and come out with exactly what we want, and I think things are moving along very well.”

 

Packard says he has been “looking at our foreign policy in these larger aspects and the impact of foreign policy on trade has not had a very high priority. Recently, there has been a good deal of talk about human rights, and emphasis on human rights, and there is no question but that this emphasis on human rights has resulted in serious damage to our trade, not only with our trade with the Soviet Union and the Iron curtain Countries, but with  countries like Brazil, and other countries which traditionally have been good friends. In the case of brazil, they simply resent our telling them how they should handle their domestic affairs, and they have placed some very substantial orders for electrical equipment with Europe simply because they resent the way our government has handled this human rights matter….I think this is something you people can help with because this indeed has damaged our ability to do business with some of these countries, and it has not, in fact, improved any of the human rights things, which I know no one disagrees with the desirability of encouraging people to improve their recognition of individual freedom and human rights, but it simply won’t work. All we do by following these policies is lose business, and there is nothing else that is going to come up. Any extent that you can convey that message to your friends in the congress, I think, will help get this policy turned around a bit.”

 

“One of the things that is a very important element in this equation is productivity. During the last three, four, five, or six years our government has done everything that they possibly could have done to reduce the productivity of American industry. Indeed, if you want to do something you just work on getting rid of some of these problems we have dealing with OSHA, …, ‘Equal Opportunity,’ and all the other things, and if we could simply take the people and the energy and the money we spend on some of these nonsensical things, and put them into Research and development we’d be way ahead of the Japanese.

 

Talking about military Research and Development, Packard says “Over the period since World War II there is no question but that the benefits of military research and Development have been a very important and constructive factor in our industry. The level of military expenditures should not be determined in any sense by that, but rather by what our needs for security may be, but there are some details of the policy which could be helpful. A few years ago an amendment was put in called The Managerial Amendment, which prohibited firms which were doing work for the government from spending any of their Research and Development money available in the contract for projects which were not directly related to military requirements. Now this is a completely non-productive way of doing things because if you look back upon the fall-out that has come from military Research and Development over the years we have benefited in many ways from things that were done initially for the military, and it turned out to be useful for civilian use. It seems to me, then, it would be wise to encourage defense contractors to spend a little time and a little effort thinking about how they could apply the technology they are developing for military weapons in products and applications for peaceful uses. This would generate a fallout – and this is specifically prohibited in the law…. “

 

In closing, Packard reminds all present of a point made by a previous speaker, saying that “The supplier relationship is extremely important, and [there is] the urgency to meet sales quotas and …other things. [However,] if all of us can think a little more about the other guy, and not place double orders, have a better understanding, better rapport, and communications, I think we’re going to improve the quality that [will bring] success in the future for the entire industry. And I want you to think very seriously about what our initial speaker said, and all of you guys that are down on the firing line, no matter what your bosses say, let’s see if you an do a little better in the future. Thank you very much.”

 

11/16/78, Copy of printed announcement for the Second Annual top Management Night sponsored by the south Bay Chapter of the Purchasing Management Association of Northern California

7/20/78, Internal HP memo to Packard and Hewlett from Purchasing Manager, John Nicolic asking if Packard would be willing to join a panel of speakers at their annual meeting, discussing the general subject of Japanese competition. A pencilled note thereon from Packard says “Advise John no on this.”

8/9/78, Internal HP memo to Packard from John Nicolic, following up on his memo of July 20

8/11/78, Copy of a letter from Packard to John Nicolic saying he would be “most pleased” to join the panel of speakers. He does suggest that the subject be narrowed down a little.

8/15/78, Memo to Packard from John Nicolic saying they are delighted that Packard will join the meeting

10/23/78, Memo to Packard from John Nicolic giving details on arrangements for the meeting

10/30/78, Memo from John Nicolic to Packard sending an article from the Harvard Business Review titled, “Can U. S. Business Survive Our Japanese Trade Policy?.” A copy is in this folder.

11/2/78, Memo to Packard from Ray Demere, HP VP Manufacturing, giving some analysis on HP’s buying practices in Japan

11/2/78, Memo to Packard from John Nicolic sending a copy of the “Pacific Purchasor,” pointing out some articles he thinks might be of interest, including a description of the forthcoming annual meeting. A copy of the magazine is in this folder.

11/7/78, Memo to Packard from John Nicolic giving additional arrangements for the meeting

11/27/78, Memo to Packard from John Nicolic thanking Packard for participating in their meeting. He adds that they transcribed the speech and will send a draft to Packard for review

Box 4, Folder 9 – General Speeches

9/79, Letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy, inviting him to the Awards Dinner on December 4, 1979. A handwritten note on the letter says “Can’t do.”

Box 4, Folder 24 – General Speeches

 

June 5, 1979, Annual Brotherhood Award Dinner, National Conference of Christians and Jews, Santa Clara County Council, San Jose, CA

 

Packard was the Guest Speaker at the dinner program which honored Dr. Frederick Terman and Mr. P.Anthony Ridder

 

6/5/79, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he was considering what to say at this affair and his mind wandered back to the fall of 1930 when he enrolled as a freshman at Stanford. He had decided he wanted to be an engineer, but didn’t have a clear idea what a career in engineering might entail. He thought he would probably be working for GE building power plants.

 

In Stanford he took a course in American History and was “thrilled” about the stories of frontier life, and the “Great Western Migration.” He particularly liked the spirit of self reliance that helped people overcome almost insurmountable obstacles.

 

Packard recalls “a sense of disappointment in realizing that the westward movement in America had ended – there were no more frontiers to conquer.”

 

Packard first met Fred Terman when he was in his Junior year. Terman was, he says, “a young Professor at Stanford who had been developing a new program in radio engineering. It was radio engineering at that time; that was the title of the textbook he had just completed. Only a few years later the field became known as electronics.”

 

Packard recalls that “This course opened a new vista for me, not only in terms of the academic content but during the course, the class visited several electronics companies in the Bay Area including some laboratories that were involved in what were to become new frontiers in this newly developing field of electronics.”

 

Packard graduated in 1934, and did indeed start to work with General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York. He says that electronics “did not have a high priority at General Electric in 1938, and it did not take much persuasion on the part of Fred Terman to convince me I should leave GE and come back to start the Hewlett-Packard Company in Palo Alto in 1939 with my old class mate, Bill Hewlett.”

 

Much of the local electronics industry moved East during World War II and Packard says that the Santa Clara Valley did not share fully in the development of this new frontier. Terman, himself, moved to Boston to “operate the radio research laboratory for the war effort.”

 

“Many of us who remained here,” he says, “were worried that Fred Terman would not return to Stanford after the war, but he did, and his leadership at Stanford has had a profound influence on the progress and prosperity of our community as well.”

 

Speaking of the growth and development of the character of Santa Clara Valley, Packard says “We were fortunate to have a system of strong local school boards working to meet the expanding needs of elementary and secondary education during the late 1940s and 1950s.

 

“We were blessed with a strong system of junior colleges to further broaden and improve our educational system in vocational areas which helped the development of industry and in other areas which contributed to the quality of life.

 

“And our community has been blessed during the last four decades with increasing individual involvement in private charity. Organizations such as the National Conference, in events such as the one we are attending here tonight, have focused attention of individual citizens on problems of our community and provided substance to deal with them.

 

“The new frontier of electronics that has been such an important part of Dr. Terman’s life and the life of so many others in Santa Clara County has brought us great prosperity. Most of the firms producing products here export these products out of the State, many out of the country as well. The electronics industry alone will bring into Santa Clara County over ten billion dollars a year, and this will largely go to 600,000 employees and their families. A large share of the wages and salaries these employees receive is spent right here to support the thousands of merchants and service activities that make up the economy of Santa Clara County.”

 

Blessed as this area may be, Packard sees some problems as well. “We still have areas of poverty in a sea of affluence. We have crowded highways in periods of peak traffic. Housing is expensive, as is nearly everything else.”

 

Packard says he does not know what the future will bring, but he says “…I am fully convinced the young people of today will …go a long way together in the next fifty years. There will be new problems, new challenges – yes, new frontiers to conquer.

 

“I have the honor now of presenting the award to Dr. Frederick E. Terman. He has had a great deal to do with making electronics the great new frontier of the 20^th century, not just in California but worldwide. As an author and teacher, Dr. Terman opened the door to electronics to hundreds of thousands of students all over the world. As Dean of Engineering at Stanford, he developed the finest Department of Electronics Engineering of any University in the country, and as provost of Stanford, he was the driving force in bringing Stanford to the forefront of all of the great universities of the world. And, as I am sure you realize, he had a key role in setting the stage for the great economic prosperity we enjoy in the Santa Clara Valley.”

 

6/5/79, Typewritten draft of Packard’s speech with several handwritten notations by him

6/5/79, One page typewritten text of the dinner program

4/79, Letter to Packard from C. Lester Hogan, Vice Chairman of the Board of Fairchild Camera and Instrument Division and Robert A. Fuhrman, President, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. The letter asks Packard if he will serve as one of the Vice Chairman of the dinner to honor Terman and Ridder. Attached is a copy of the printed invitation for  the dinner

4/4/79, Letter to Packard from Patrick H. Peabody Chairman of the NCCJ Santa Clara county Region, suggesting they get together to discuss the extent of Packard’s participation on the event committee

5/14/79, Letter to Packard from Lillian Silberestein, Executive Director of the NCCJ, thanking him for agreeing to give the keynote address at the dinner. She encloses some background material about the NCCJ.

5/24/79, Letter to Packard from Lillian Silberstein, asking that Mr. and Mrs. Packard join them at the head table, and giving other details of the dinner arrangements.

Undated, Newspaper clipping from unnamed paper covering Packard’s address at the dinner

 

 

Box 4, Folder 25 – General Speeches

 

July 18, 1979, Statement Before the Energy Resources, Conservation and Development Commission of the State of California, representing the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group

 

7/18/79, Copy of the typewritten text of Packard’s statement

 

Packard tells the Commission of the concerns of the high-technology industry for reliabile electric resources in the near future. He emphasizes that it is not the amount of power they need, it is the reliability.

 

He describes the size of the industry and the jobs that are involved – says that the industry and the jobs would be at risk if they do not have adequate power reserves. “It is our understanding,” he says, “ that the utilities collectively have set a reserve capacity minimum requirement of approximately 15%, and that your guidelines might be even lower.” With the projected rapid growth of the electronics industry in the county, Packard says the reserve capacity should be more like 25%.

 

Another point Packard addresses is conservation. “We understand…that you are counting heavily on conservation to provide additional available power for the growth of our industry. All of the member firms of the Santa Clara county Manufacturing Group are aware of the need for conservation, and all of them have instituted programs to conserve electric power and to minimize the waste of energy….”

 

“We are concerned, however, that there now may be an over-reliance on conservation to provide the needed power reserves for the future….The most effective conservation measures have already been taken.”

 

Given the projected growth of the electronic industry, and the fact that electric utilities take 5 to 15 years to bring a new generating facilitity on line, Packard says that the risks are extremely high.

 

“Unless it is your conscious desire that we plan for growth outside the state of California, we urge that you substantially increase the margin of reserve capacity in your planning process.”

 

“It is clear to me,” Packard says,… “that the present reserve capacity without Diablo Canyon [nuclear plant] is inadequate and that the electricity from the Diablo Canyon facility is needed now. We have no other alternatives for the near term. Though you may want to establish a policy providing other means of power generation for the long term, adequate power for the immediate future, 1980-1981, is critical.”

 

“In conclusion, let me say that it is the observation of the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group that the current energy commission forecasts are unrealistic. Further, its policy of constraining economic growth and forcing conservation by means of a minimal electrical power reserve carries with it significant risks in terms of jobs and economic dislocation for a very important segment of the state’s industrial sector. I urge that you modify your policy; that you continue to emphasize conservation but raise the minimum electric power reserve to a more realistic level to avoid the major problems associated with power outages.”

 

“This state has many superior attributes. They continue to be an attraction to a great many people who want to live here. Accepting growth gracefully is not easy, but I believe it can be done without taking unnecessary risks. We must plan carefully to accommodate changing conditions, but, philosophically, I do not believe that we have to plan for a lower standard of living in order to protect the environment.

 

“Energy is a matter of great concern to the American people. Changes are inevitable, but those changes must be based on fact and not wishful thinking. I commend your commission for the professional work you have accomplished in providing a solid base for our planning process. It is the decisions that are made from this factual base that will be crucial to the future economy of the state of California. I urge that you establish a policy of safeguarding our future by providing a reserve electric-generating capacity safely in excess of minimum requirements.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 26 – General Speeches

 

October 4, 1979, Forecasting the Energy Future, Peninsula Industrial and Business Association, Palo Alto, CA

 

Packard is asked to be the Keynote Speaker at a workshop about energy sponsored by the Peninsula Industrial and Business Association.

 

10/4/79, Handwritten text of Packard’s speech, written by him on yellow, lined,  writing pad paper.

10/4/79 Also included is a typewritten text of Packard’s speech which is somewhat different, but with the same message.

 

“Until about 10 years ago,” Packard says, “it was a relatively simple problem to forecast the Energy future for California. The energy situation in California had been outstanding for many decades. There had been good performance and good planning by the public utilities all up and down the State. Gas and electricity were cheap and reliable and industry had no reason to give the matter any concern. It was known that the State had nearly reached the limit of hydroelectric development, that out-of- state sources for gas and oil would increasingly be relied on in the future, but nuclear power would provide an ample back up at reasonable cost.

 

“There were some straws in the wind 10 years ago that indicated trouble ahead for energy but they did not engender much serious concern. There was increasing opposition to nuclear power but this was from the lunatic fringe elements of society. That situation has not changed except the opposition to nuclear power has become more vocal as well as more lunatic and has been a real deterrent to the expansion of nuclear power.

 

“I assume this subject will come in for some discussion and, frankly, I believe it is time for the energy using industries in this State to take a much stronger and more visible and active position in support of nuclear power. As I see the situation there will be a very serious energy problem in Northern California if the Diablo Canyon Plant does not go on line before the peak power demand period next year.

 

“Again, back to the situation ten years ago. During the time I was in Washington – from 1969 to 1972, there was no great concern about energy. There was a great deal of work being done in 1971 to find a solution to the Middle East problem but no one predicted at that time war would break out again, in fact the October War of 1973 was not widely predicted even a few months before it broke.

 

“There are two things that have happened over the past ten years that have made the energy problem a much more serious matter. The most serious and least controllable development is the change in the Mid-East. First the oil embargo, then Iran. And we now are living with an unstable, unpredictable and dangerous situation. We have the current situation of questionable reliability of supplies and uncontrollable prices.

 

“Worse yet, we should not, in our planning overlook the distinct probability of further political and possible military turmoil that could further restrict or even disrupt the flow of oil from the Mid-East.

 

“While the magnitude and the seriousness of the energy problem have greatly increased over the last ten years, our governments, Federal and State, have become actively involved. It is hard to find any evidence that government involvement has made the situation better. Indeed,  almost everything they have done has made it worse.

 

“Thus, the situation in which we find ourselves is that the Energy Future is at the mercy of developments in the Mid-East and at the mercy of political developments here at home. Actually, the energy future in the United States is also at the mercy of political developments in all of the major oil producing countries, including Canada and Mexico.

 

“Given these problems, there is little that can be said about the energy future that might not be overtaken by events tomorrow or in a year. Developments in the Mid-East, as you know, have been and will continue to be strongly influenced by what goes on in Washington. The Camp David Summit and the resulting Israeli-Egyptian accords are a step that had to be taken toward any long term solution. Whether the next step can be taken in a way which will not further weaken our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a very important matter bearing on our Energy Future.

 

“Even more important is the stability of the Saudi Government. Though not very well understood here at home is the fact of U.S. deteriorating military strength, world wide, vs. the Soviet Union. Unless this trend is reversed it is only a matter of time, say five years, until the Soviets are in a position to disrupt the flow of Mid-East oil. And the United States would have no way to deal with the situation short of the resort to nuclear arms – a course I do not consider to be acceptable to us or to the rest of the world.

 

Packard says he mentions this as a “possibility” not a “probability” – “the worst possible development in relation to our Energy Future.

 

“It has often been said that we do not have an Energy Crisis – we have instead a crisis of too much government in energy matters. The Energy Future will depend a great deal on whether and when our Federal and State governments realize they have very little ability to deal with the problem of producing and distributing energy, and turn this matter back to be resolved by the forces and incentives of a free market.

 

“I believe more of the general public is becoming disillusioned by the intervening hand of government, but they are not yet ready to let the private sector get on with the job. For that reason, the Energy Future in California will continue to be distorted and held back by the helpful hand of Big Brother in Washington or of Little Brother in Sacramento.

 

“On this point, a friend of mine recently asked Governor Brown why he continued to appoint so many ‘kooks,’ such as Jane Fonda and her like to important offices in Sacramento. The Governor’s response was – ‘After all there are so many ‘kooks’ in California and they deserve to be represented.’

 

Packard reemphasizes the point that it is not possible to forecast the future energy picture with any assurance that the forecast would be right – “except to the extent one can forecast the outcome of a very ominous world wide political military situation and an equally unpredictable domestic political situation.”

 

Packard turns to some specific aspects of the energy situation. “First, I strongly believe a safety factor should be included in projections for growth in electrical energy demand. The reason I say this is because the cost of an energy shortfall will be so high in terms of loss of production, driving industry from the State, and unnecessary inconveniences of all kinds that far overshadow the cost of a reasonable margin of reserve capacity in our systems….It is much easier to provide standby reserves of gas or oil at individual plant locations [than for electrical power.]

 

“Second, I do not believe we can possibly meet our energy needs without nuclear power. As I see it, we will have a very serious problem in Northern California if the Diablo Canyon plant does not go on stream in the near future. If I am wrong about this Mr. Shackelford [Bart Shackelford, President of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.] can set the record straight [when he speaks] this noon.”

 

“If the situation on nuclear power is as serious as it appears to be, I believe it is essential for all of us who are energy users to speak up. The utilities are not likely to carry the day against Governor Brown and his ‘kooks’ without help – and we users are the ones who will lose if the battle is lost.

 

“I do not believe we will have a shortage of natural gas in the foreseeable future if the government will get out of the way and let the free market forces come into play.

 

“Oil is another matter, and there will be a shortage for transportation, automobiles and airlines, and it will require strong action on every front —  conservation, coal conversion, alcohol and other substitutes —  as well as further progress on automobile fuel efficiency to avoid very serious problems in the future.

 

“Here, the development of tar sands and shale could help enormously. I understand the Canadian tar sands have oil equivalent to perhaps fifty years of current world wide oil consumption, and shale perhaps even more. These sources have a high monetary price and a high ecological price but they both should be given high priority against the potential risks to the world wide supply of conventional oil.

 

“Solar power, particularly if one includes biological products, wind etc. do have considerable potential over the longer term. I think current efforts to subsidize solar installations are misguided and will result in the installation of much unsatisfactory equipment. There is already a great deal of effort going into research and development of practical equipment and here again I believe we would be better off to rely on the market forces rather than government intervention to get the job done.

 

Adding to his previous mention of conservation, Packard says “It is certainly true that the cheapest energy we will ever have is the energy we have today. Some people believe that conservation could reduce by 30-40% our current use of energy. I do not believe this is realistic without the most stringent measures to induce conservation. Putting this matter in another way we could probably live on 30-40% less energy – yes, even 30-40% less oil and gasoline if we had to, but I don’t see any way to induce the American public to such drastic conservation. I don’t believe that even a large increase in price would do [it.] I don’t know what the price demand for oil and gasoline might be but it is probably 2 or 3 – 1 at least. I doubt that $3 a gallon gasoline would reduce consumption by more than 25%. And, of course, this is all speculative because it is not politically doable.

 

“I am afraid I have not done very well in saying anything new or useful about Forecasting the Energy Future. I make no special apology, however, for books have been written on this subject by people who have not said anything useful either.

 

“The subject of your workshop today is immensely important for the future welfare of your companies and our industries here on the Peninsula. We, as energy users, have a great stake in this issue. I believe we can have a considerable influence on the Energy Future if only we give it a very high priority and begin to work and speak out in a way that will counter all the anti energy these ‘kooks’ in California, who are working hard with a serious dedication against the future welfare of our companies, our employees and our customers.

 

“It is time to change from defensive actions to offensive actions and I commend to all of you the best defense is a good offense. And I suggest to each of you that [that] old adage applies to energy as well as to football.”

 

10/4/79, Copy of printed registration form for the PMA program

10/4/79, Copy of the printed program for the energy workshop

8/1/79, Letter to Packard from Flemming L. Nielsen, Chairman of the PMA Energy committee asking if Packard would speak to their group at a workshop on energy

8/13/79, Copy of a letter from Packard to Flemming L. Nielsen  saying he would be able to participate in the workshop

8/22/79, Letter to Packard from F. L. Nielsen, thanking him for agreeing to participate in their workshop

9/28/79, Note from HP manager Jack Beckett, attaching an article from The Energy Daily

9/24/79, Copy of a memorandum to all workshop participants from the Workshop Team, giving information about the workshop arrangements

9/27/79, Copy of a letter to Packard from Flemming L. Nielsen discussing arrangements for speakers at the workshop

9/28/79, Copy of a letter to HP manager Jack Beckett from Victor Calvo California Assemblyman, thanking him for information sent, and discussing opportunities to meet on energy problems

1979, Photocopies of several newspaper articles discussing energy issues apparently gathered by/for Packard

 

 

Box 4, Folder 27 – General Speeches

 

October 31, 1979, Engineers and Public Affairs, Founders Award Lecture, National Academy of Engineering, Washington D. C.

 

10/31/79, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with several  notations handwritten by him

 

Packard was left to select whatever subject matter he wished for his address. He chose Engineers and Public Affairs so he could, he says, “discuss several issues which I believe are of great importance today; because they are responsible, at least to some degree, for the decline in productivity and in technical innovation in the United States….I want to discuss,” he says, “matters of public policy, governmental regulatory problems, actions of pressure groups and public attitudes toward various aspects of engineering work. This subject is of great importance not only to our profession, but also to the economic welfare of our country.

 

Packard feels that “a very large part of the economic progress made in the United States since the beginning of this century has been built on the contributions of engineering ingenuity and engineering productivity,” He  cites the automobile as an outstanding example; [plus], radio, television, electronics, communications and computers on the electrical side, [and] plastics, fibers, drugs, fertilizers and pesticides on the chemical side. The airplane and many other products which are commonplace today are [also] the products of engineering and science.”

 

“Similar developments were going on in other countries around the world, in Europe and in Japan in particular. And in some technical areas – for example, chemistry in Germany before world War II – engineers in other countries were more innovative and more productive than engineers in the United States.”

 

“Since World War II engineers and scientists in the United States have outperformed those in other countries around the world in almost every area of technology. From the end of the War until the mid-1960s, our technical leadership produced great economic progress because several other essential ingredients were present.”

 

The reason for this, Packard feels, was the ready availability of risk capital in the U. S. This provided the incentive needed to encourage adventurous investment and management. Also he says “There were few inhibiting governmental regulations. And economic growth had considerable virtue in the eyes of the public. These, indeed, were also the essential ingredients that had converted engineering innovation into great new industries earlier in the century, and in earlier centuries since the industrial revolution.

 

“Today, there is considerable concern, supported by evidence, that the United States is losing its dominant lead in engineering innovation and productivity, and that our economy is becoming stagnant….The decline has become devastating in some areas, such as nuclear power and the development of new drugs, and it is of serious concern in other areas.” Packard sees it likely that we will find “the United States second best in almost all areas of engineering innovation and productivity by the turn of the century.

 

Packard does not feel this has come about because engineers are less innovative or less productive. And there is no shortage of important and innovative engineering work to be done – new energy sources, new materials, computer technology, communications and transportation are areas he mentions as providing great opportunities for innovative engineering.

 

“I believe,” he says, “the decline we are seeing in engineering innovation and productivity an be attributed to several key developments. First, changes were made in tax policy a few years ago that reduced the availability of risk capital and reduced the incentive for adventurous management. This affected the establishment of new business concerns.

 

“Second, regulatory activity has diverted a great deal of engineering time and effort away from innovative work into activity that is essentially unproductive.

 

“And third, public opinion about the virtue of growth has changed, and public safety has become a more important issue that has fed back into the regulatory processes.”

 

“And speaking of regulations reminds Packard of the time back in 1939 when he and Bill Hewlett were starting the company. “There were,” he says, “considerable incentives in tax policy to plow earnings back into the business and look forward to capital gains in the long run. We had no regulatory problems to take up our time. My wife, in her spare time in the evenings, could easily fill out all the forms that were needed. Thus, Bill and I could direct whatever energy and engineering talent we might possess into the mainstream of our business – designing, building and selling new electronic instruments.”

 

“When I see all the impediments today, it seems to me a wonder that anyone tries to start a new business, particularly one engaged in new technology. The fact that Hewlett-Packard Company has grown from its beginning in 1939 to a worldwide firm employing over 50,000 people producing over two billion dollars’ worth of advanced technology products every year may have been in part the result of hard work and a little luck. But I assure you that a favorable environment for engineering innovation and engineering productivity had a great deal to do with such success as we have been able to achieve.”

 

Packard points out that the many companies which started in “Silicon Valley” depended greatly on teams of highly talented, highly motivated scientists and engineers. “They were attracted to these newly forming enterprises because there could be greater personal rewards than in a traditional job in an established concern. They could be paid in stock options which would become very valuable if their work were successful.

 

“This incentive for engineering innovation and engineering productivity that encouraged the establishment of new business ventures was all but destroyed in the early 1970s by two governmental actions: a change in federal tax policy that made stock options taxable when they were exercised rather than when the stock was sold, and an increase in the capital gains tax. Almost immediately, the rate of formation of new businesses built on engineering innovation began to fall off dramatically.

 

“The Congress, by these actions, thought it was closing some loopholes in Federal tax policy. In fact, it was closing a very important incentive to engineering innovation and productivity that was bringing very large economic benefits and, I might add, substantial tax revenue at the local and state as well as the federal level.”

 

“Fortunately, last year a number of people, mostly engineers who had been affected, took an active role with the Congress and succeeded in getting the capital gains tax rate reduced. Many of these same people have been working with the Congress to restore the value of stock options, and they are likely to be successful. If they are, they will have restored an important incentive to the creation of new technical businesses, and new jobs, to the stimulation of the economy and to the maintenance of U.S. technical leadership.”

 

Packard sees some other aspects of public policy that “have had a dampening effect on engineering innovation and productivity. Policies relating to education, equal opportunity, problems of poverty, and many other areas of social concern have shifted significantly. As one very important result, the concept of equal opportunity, with the rewards going to those who succeed, has been largely supplanted by a concept of equal results, where the regards of success must be shared with those who do not succeed.

 

“I agree that the disadvantaged need help in reducing their disadvantages, and I agree that the impoverished should be helped in raising themselves from the dark despair of poverty. But I firmly believe we must be much more careful to make sure that public policy, while attempting to improve the shortcomings of our society, does not at the same time destroy the strengths of our society. To me, engineering ingenuity and productivity are clearly two of our most important strengths. What we need is to find a way to apply more judgement and common sense to these matters of social concern so we do not have to pay such a high price for a little progress.

 

“The case of nuclear power is one of the most serious,” he says. “The engineering and construction work to design, build and bring on line a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant should take between four and five years. That is about the time required today in Korea, Taiwan and other countries where the regulatory process is reasonably straightforward (and where public protest is minimal or non-existent).

 

“This is not the case in this country,” he adds. [In this country] the complex maze of regulatory procedures and delays resulting from public protest have nearly tripled the time it takes to build such a plant in the United States. Instead of four or five years as it should be, it takes twelve to fifteen years to bring a new plant on line in the United States.

 

And Packard points to similar delays in obtaining regulatory approval for other engineering projects. “Coal-fired power plants, and even those using natural gas or oil, require at least twice the time that should be needed to do the necessary engineering and construction work.

 

An oil refinery is another type project Packard points to. “Fifteen years ago,” he says, “a major oil refinery was built in the United States in two years, from the authorization of the project until completion of construction. Today it would take at least two years after the project was authorized to get all the regulatory approvals, and a total of five or six years for a similar project

 

“Nor is this crippling over-regulation limited to major projects. Many companies in the course of their normal work now have 50% or more of their engineers dealing with regulatory problems instead of doing useful and innovative work. Seldom can one find an engineering activity today, from working on a bridge to constructing a new industrial plant, in which the engineers are spending less than 10% of their time dealing with unproductive and, to a large extent, unnecessary regulatory problems.

 

“Before 1960 there were few, if any, companies whose engineers spent as much as 10% of their time in such unproductive work. It’s no wonder engineering innovation is on the decline in the United States. Incentives and rewards for innovation have been reduced by public policy, and thousands of engineers have been condemned to useless, unproductive work by seemingly endless regulatory procedures.

 

Public attitudes have had a lot to do with this situation Packard agrees. “Public attitudes have affected public policies and engendered more stringent regulatory procedures.

 

“There are several ways in which public attitudes have changed during the last decade and a half. One change is in what people think is important. As economic well-being has increased, other things have become more important. Many young people are more interested in the quality of life, variously defined, rather than economic success. The preservation of the natural environment has become more important to many than, for example, the production of more electricity.

 

“A second way public attitudes have changed,” Packard believes, “is in the perception of what is an acceptable risk. This issue has become increasingly sensitive because we have discovered potential dangers from many situations and substances that were heretofore considered harmless. Of course, we knew two decades ago of a number of substances that were known to be dangerous to people after long exposure at a very low level. But the list of such potentially dangerous substances has been greatly increased by continuing research. We now have instruments that will make rather accurate measurements of materials that are present at very low levels of concentration, much below one part in a million. Thus, we must deal with contaminants we didn’t even know were present twenty years ago.

 

“The increasing concern about the quality of life is, of course, related to changing attitudes about acceptable risks. If a person is hungry enough, he is willing to risk his life to get enough to eat. If he is living a happy life secure from all of the traditional risks that threatened him a few decades ago, his concern will naturally turn toward those things which threatened him at a lower level of probability.

 

“These changes in public attitude began to appear in the mid-1960s and have been greatly accelerated in the decade of the 1970s. These public attitudes have been an important factor in the regulatory problem, for our legislators must respond to the attitudes and priorities of their constituents.

 

“Unfortunately, pressure groups have had a large influence in translating the changing concerns and changing priorities of our society into restrictive and regulatory legislation. This legislation has had the serious effect on engineering innovation and productivity that I have described.

 

“I would like to make it clear,” Packard emphasizes, “that I do not believe the widespread concern about damage to our natural environment is wrong; indeed, I share that concern. And I do not believe the change in what is considered to be an acceptable risk is wrong, either.

 

“What we need is a better way to deal with these matters. And what we need to ask is, how can our social concerns be accommodated without reducing or eliminating the ability of engineers to make in the future the kind of important contributions they have made in the past?

 

“our profession has a great deal at stake in these matters. They are far too important to be left to the politicians, the lawyers and the activists. In fact, the politicians, lawyers and activists have caused problems. So I am suggesting today that we, as engineers, must become more active in public affairs. We must draw inspiration from the good example of constructive changes that were made in Federal tax policy – changes, I am convinced, that would not have come about without the involvement of engineers from Silicon Valley. We must strive to make our voices heard on issues affecting our profession.

 

“I am convinced that most legislation is biased to some extent, at least in the direction of those who are more active in presenting their views. I also think a certain amount of bad legislation comes about simply because legislators aren’t always well informed. I don’t believe engineers have been anywhere nearly as active or as aggressive in the legislative process as they could be in support of what they know and what they believe. I am convinced more participation on your part would be welcome at both the state and federal level. In particular, I believe the time is right to obtain some reforms of these burdensome regulatory matters.

 

Packard describes his experience in California where, following his remarks similar to the above, panels of government legislators and regulators, met with several business executives and engineers in a day-long discussion about the energy question. “I noted,” he says, “with some surprise and a great deal of satisfaction, that the discussions were amicable and extremely constructive. There was no hostility, no defensiveness. Rather, there was a sincere desire on the part of everyone to fully understand the energy problem and to come to grips with it. Most important, the government people were outspoken in their desire to obtain more frequent input from the private sector, pointing out that such input was essential to the government’s decision making process.

 

Packard feels that most legislators, “particularly the effective ones, are very sensitive to the thoughts and opinions of the ‘people back home,’ their constituents. We should all take advantage of this opportunity to be heard, particularly by becoming acquainted with our elected representatives and familiar with their interests and concerns. Contrary to what some people believe, legislators are interested in what we think, especially if we are ale to offer some useful, factual information and some first-hand experience with the subject under consideration.

 

“Of course, public attitudes are constantly shifting, and increasing in their depth and complexity. In any case, we are not likely to turn the clock back to what some of us might recall ‘the good old days.’ Concern about preserving our environment will continue to be high in the public mind, and risks to health and safety that were tolerated at the beginning of this century will not be tolerated at the beginning of the next.

 

“I believe we engineers can influence public attitudes more effectively. To the extent we can recognize these changes and take them into consideration in our work, we can reduce to some extent the need for and the possibility of governmental intervention.

 

“The automotive industry provides a good example. It was known for more than ten years before Federal air pollution regulations were imposed on the industry that automobiles were a major source of smog. Engineering solutions were known that would have been more practical and less costly than those mandated by Congressional action. But little was done, and you all know the result of that inaction. I would hope our profession can find some way to take voluntary action on engineering matters that will become public issues in the future.

 

“But if we, as engineers are to operate more effectively in the public arena, we must exercise our right and our privilege to speak out. We must become better advocates in the future for the things we know and believe. We must become better advocates before our legislators, our public officials and the general public [do.]

 

“The United States became the most powerful and most influential nation in the world since World War II because our engineers became the most innovative and most productive engineers in the world, and we operated in an atmosphere that nurtured the conversion of engineering innovation into economic progress. We are beginning to lose this position of dominance. I believe we can help reverse this trend of more engineers give public affairs a higher priority in the work they do.”

 

 

10/31/79, Printed copy of Packard’s lecture prepared by the NAE

7/5/79, Letter to Packard from Courtland D. Perkins President, National Academy of Engineering telling Packard he has been selected to receive the 1979 Founder’s Award. He tells Packard they would like him to deliver a lecture on a subject of his choice, and he encloses copies of recent speeches given by other award recipients.

7/9/79, Copy of a letter from Packard to Courtland D. Perkins saying he is honored to be nominated for the Award, and will have a lecture prepared for the occasion.

8/20/79, Letter to Packard from George M. Low, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the previous year’s Award recipient, congratulating Packard on his nomination for the Award this year

8/79, Copy of a biographical sketch apparently prepared by NAE and sent to Packard for review

10/2/79, Letter to Ms. Margaret Paull, Packard’s Secretary, from Robert J. Burger of NAE, thanking her for giving them the title of Packard’s lecture

10/26/79, Internal HP memo to Packard from environmental engineer, Glenn Affleck giving examples of delays and added costs to HP dealing with governmental agencies on environmental matters. He attaches copies of letters exchanged with government representatives.

11/8/79, Letter to Packard from Luis W. Alvarez congratulating him on receiving the Award

11/20/79, Letter to Packard from Courtland D. Perkins of NAE thanking him for his “beautifully organized and delivered speech”

12/21/79, Letter to Packard from Harold Liebowitz, NAE, sending copies of several NAE publications

1/30/79, Copy of a letter from Courtland Perkins to professor Massonnet in Belgium giving permission to publish a translation of Packard’s speech to the 4000 members of their society

 

 

Box 4, Folder 28 – General Speeches

 

December 9-12, AEA Electronic Warfare Conference, Monterey; CA

 

12/10/79,  Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks at the opening of this conference.

 

Packard says his experience with electronic warfare is “spotty;”

first during World War II, when he worked on developing an anti-radar device for the Navy, and second when he was in the DOD from 1969 to 1972. “I have been involved ,” he says, “one way or another in a great many of the wrong things to do – in fact, at one time or another I have done most of them.”

 

Packard says he wants to talk about four points:

 

1. Electronic warfare is an area where the United States has a decisive lead over any combination of potential enemies.
2. Packard sees many “exciting” opportunities for electronic warfare in the future.
3. It is important to develop new electronic equipment and get it to the military as quickly as possible – before it becomes obsolete.
4. Military equipment must be reliable.

 

On the first point, regarding our lead over potential enemies, Packard says, “I am convinced we can stay ahead both in the development and production of the necessary hardware, and also I think we can continue to enjoy the support of the Congress and the general public in this very important facet of our national security.”

 

He says both the [Soviet Union] and [China]  are considerably behind the United States in electronic work. “The USSR has good technical people and they apply a great deal of common sense to development problems. Also, military equipment has the highest priority in both the USSR and the PRC. The PRC, however, is at least a decade behind the U.S. and the Western world in all aspects of electronic work.

 

“I am convinced we, at this time, have a decisive advantage in all aspects of military electronic capability over any possible combination of adversaries. It is absolutely essential that we keep this lead.”

 

On the future of electronics Packard says “…there are several exciting opportunities just over the horizon.

“Solid state devices have been extended into higher frequencies and without any doubt, millimeter waves will be used for many military applications in the future. Memory capacity has been expanding at a very rapid rate in recent years and will certainly continue to expand for some time in the future. This technical progress opens many interesting possibilities for electronic warfare, as does the increasing speed and power of LSI.

 

“Other types of transistors are becoming more powerful, and speed or frequency range is increasing.

 

“Not least of all, life and reliability of solid state devices are increasing. Without any doubt the future holds just as great a promise of progress as it did a decade or two decades ago.”

 

On the third point, rapid development of new devises, Packard poses the question “…how can we, you people who are here at this conference, continue to optimize the capability of our military forces with the latest and the best electronic equipment?

 

“I judge,” he says, “this is the theme of this conference, and I hope you can have a good give and take discussion while you are here together.

 

“Now I don’t believe the delays in getting new equipment are primarily due to any serious delays in perceiving the need or evaluating the threat. There may be some shortcomings in this area, but these are not in the ability of someone in the military to perceive the need or to evaluate the threat – rather the problem is how to get someone high enough in authority to decide that something must be done about the need and the threat and to get it done.

 

“The best way to get something done about an important need or an important threat is to get the problem to a high enough level for action with the fewest number of people.

 

“In the first lace, if an important requirement has to go through too many levels of approval before it gets to the final action point, much time will be wasted and the proposition that arrives at the point of action will have been modified considerably on the way – often to the extent the person who started it would not recognize it as his proposition when it gets all the way through the layers of bureaucracy.

 

“This was the basic premise of the so called ‘prototype’ program that we started when I was in the Pentagon. Here the idea was to limit the involvement of people trying to specify every detail of a new weapon before it was developed.

“ It was my thought that if you just gave the contractor a good description of what you wanted the performance to be, and assuming he had the experience and the capability, you would get a design with better balance between cost, performance, reliability, etc. than if you had an army of clowns in the military trying to specify all the details in advance and then have a corps of lawyers, who were usually less capable than clowns in these matters, write this all into a contract.

 

“From these remarks you should conclude that I believe a closer relationship, one based on confidence and a common understanding of objectives between the contractor and the department would go a long way toward more effective, more timely and less costly development programs.

 

“I realize there are budget problems, political problems and other problems, but I will repeat what I said eight or nine years ago, if contractors and the services would quit playing games with each other and with the Congress, our military establishment would be in much better shape.”

 

Packard turn to his fourth point, reliability. “As electronic equipment becomes more complex, it tends to be less reliable and more difficult to repair.

 

“Fortunately, solid state electronics and LSI can be more reliable than earlier vintage electronic equipment.

 

“But, as I am sure all of you here know, reliability can not be specified into being. It must be designed in and built in. Reliability is highly dependent on the attitude of the contractor, for it requires meticulous attention to detail – and experience is very important in designing and building highly reliable equipment.

 

“Here I think free and frank discussions between contractors and with the services might do more than a lot of the detailed military specifications to achieve improved reliability.

 

“Operational testing is important because reliability problems show up in operational testing that do not show up under laboratory testing. Extensive laboratory testing and operational testing will show up problems that need to be corrected. All of the reliability problems will never show up before a considerable number of products have been produced and used in operation.

 

“For this reason there should be more reliance placed on the performance of every contractor, in terms of the performance of the product, its cost and its reliability in actual operation.

 

“If we could find some contracting flexibility to enable the Department of Defense to select for the new job that contractor who had the best record on comparable jobs in the past, I think we would be miles ahead to terms of getting the best, the most reliable, and the lowest cost equipment for our forces whether it be electronic warfare or any other military equipment.”

 

12/10/79, Handwritten text of Packard’s speech written by him

12/9/79, Folder of handouts given to Conference attendees

12/9/79, Copy of Conference schedule

12/9/79, Copy of printed detailed program for the Conference

6/18/79, Letter to Packard from E. E. Ferrey, AEA President, inviting him to speak at the electronic warfare conference the AEA is sponsoring. He attaches a tentative program.

7/10/79, Copy of a letter from Packard to E. E. Ferrey, saying he would like to but cannot do it on December 11. He suggests December 10.

7/27/79, Letter to Packard from John J. Baumeister, AEA VP, confirming the December 10 date.

9/14/79, List of conference speakers.

9/26/79, Letter to Packard from John J. Baumeister, enclosing a copy of a brochure describing the conference.

10/19/79, Letter to Packard from John J. Baumeister enclosing a list of key issues to be discussed at the conference.

5/15/80, Letter to Packard from John J. Baumeister enclosing recommendations that resulted from the Conference.

12/79, Newspaper clipping from unnamed newspaper covering Packard’s speech, along with a photograph

Box 4,  Folder 29 – General Speeches

 

January 3-4 1980 – Productivity and Technical Change, an address given at a conference on the Postwar Changes in the American Economy, sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Key Biscayne, FL

 

1/3/80, Copy of text of Packard’s speech

 

“In the two decades that reached from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s,” Packard says, “the United States had a healthy economy , characterized by rapid economic growth and low inflation, and propelled by great technical progress.  This technical progress helped generate annual increases in productivity in excess of 3 percent, and was a major contributor to the overall well-being of the economy.”

 

Packard also points to the economies of Europe and Japan which recovered from the destruction of World War II, “and by 1965,” he says “were achieving annual productivity increases even larger than those in the U.S. ; in the case of Japan alone, productivity was increasing at annual rates of from 6 to 8 percent.

 

“Since about 1970, the rates of improvement in productivity have declined in the major industrial countries of the world, with corresponding declines in the health of their economies from the robust decades following the war. This serious deterioration in the well-being of the free world economy has been of great concern to businessmen, economists, and people in government at many levels. It is difficult to find much to be said that has not already been said about the subject. Yet the problem is so important that it is imperative that the search for answers continue and that action which will improve the situation be identified and undertaken.”

 

Packard says that “It seems to be generally agreed among both economic scholars, managers and government executives that improvement in productivity would be helpful in reducing inflation and promoting economic growth.

 

And he says that the productivity of a business enterprise is influenced primarily by management and technological innovation.

 

Looking at each of these, he says “Management plays a major role in determining the structure of the organization, influences the quality of supervision, provides training for the workers and works to motivate employees. There can be significant improvement in productivity from management-directed activity, as shown by the range of productivity that can be measured between well managed and poorly managed enterprises.

 

“While productivity gains can be made by management leadership that encourages people to work harder and work smarter, technology is the base of most major gains in productivity.

 

“The use of better tools, better equipment and better manufacturing processes is the only way productivity can be improved once management’s contribution has been optimized. Even with the handicap of poor management practices, better tools, equipment and processes will usually improve productivity.”

 

[The reason] “industrial productivity has been higher in Europe and Japan since the war, is at least in part,” he says, “because new plants employing the most modern equipment were built to replace those destroyed during the war, while plants in the United States continued to operate with older, less productive equipment. Also, many of the industries in these countries were playing a catch-up game.

 

“Inflation, coupled with the government’s traditional fiscal and tax policies, have made the replacement of older equipment more and more expensive and difficult, although the investment tax credit allowance is a step forward. It is one of the few incentives left to industry to improve productivity through new equipment.

 

“A more liberal depreciation policy would also help in the more rapid replacement of older equipment, although to be effective, management would have to place less emphasis on short-term profits.

 

“Nearly every enterprise could improve its productivity by the more extensive use of the newer and more productive equipment that is already available, but the greatest contribution clearly must come from the acceleration of the discovery and the innovative application of new technology.

 

“Technology is an important contributor to productivity in areas beyond development of better, more effective equipment and processes. Technology makes its most dramatic contribution to productivity in the creation of entirely new products from which new business enterprises and entirely new industries develop.”

 

Packard points to several examples of new industries created in the United States: “Automobiles, aircraft, plastics and chemicals, electronics, communications, and computers are just a few,” he says.

 

“The creation of a new industry based on technology requires the innovative application of scientific knowledge to do something that is useful and that needs to be done.

 

“The process can involve innovative application of old technology, but the most dramatic examples come from the discovery of new technology. A recent example is the invention of the transistor and related solid-state electronics technology, followed by the development of large-scale integrated circuits.

 

“This new technology has made possible the modern computer industry. Thousands of new products and new business enterprises have been generated in this multibillion-dollar industry in which again the United States was, and still is, in the lead.

 

“Computers have made a considerable contribution to increased productivity throughout industry, although there may be some debate about just how much . The industry itself has achieved productivity gains estimated at 35% per year reflected in lower prices and increased performance.

 

To achieve such large gains, Packard says two ingredients are necessary. “One is the discovery of new scientific knowledge. The other is the creation of the proper environment, the incentives and the resources to encourage the innovative application of the new technology to something useful that needs to be done. Both ingredients are necessary to support a productive research and development endeavor.

 

“We often discuss research and development without considering that a very wide range of activities is involved. Research is generally considered to be the search for new knowledge, but more often it involves gaining a better understanding of what is already generally known. Development generally means practical application of scientific knowledge to produce new tools, new processes, and new products. Here, sometimes, research in terms of a search for new knowledge is also needed, and this no clear line can be drawn between research and development, and indeed they are often linked together.”

 

Packard says there has been considerable discussion recently about whether the United States is falling behind in research and development, but the discussion does not always made a distinction between the discovery of new basic knowledge and the whole host of other activities that goes on under the heading of R & D.

 

“The number of patents issued is often used as an index of the level of R & D, but only a few patents involve new basic knowledge. Most patents involve the use of existing technologies. The number of patents issues may be a general indication of the country’s scientific and engineering activity, but this is not a good indication of the level or quality of basic research.”

 

Packard feels “The United States should consider new and more effective ways to increase the level of research and development in domestic industry with particular emphasis on how to encourage a higher level of basic research by industry. We should also lo9ok for ways to improve effectiveness of established and continuing federally supported research and development.

 

“One suggestion to encourage an increase in the level of R & D by industry is to allow a federal tax credit for R & D. There is not doubt that the establishment of such a tax credit would encourage management to increase the level of funding and activity. However, unless this credit were established only for increases in R&D above previous levels, we would find that the credit would be used to pay for a great deal of work that would have been done anyway.

 

“Since a substantial part of the cost of R & D is in the instrumentation and equipment required, the investment credit might be increased by an additional percentage, say 10 to 20 percent of cost for machinery and equipment used in research and development. Faster write-off of equipment and facilities used for R & D would also help. There would be some definition problems here, as there would be for tax credits for total or incremental R & D expenditures, but I believe they would be less troublesome.”

 

“I believe the entire Department of Energy program for support for R & D would be e-examined to make sure all promising areas of basic research are adequately funded. Here the program should be patterned after the brilliant Office of Naval Research program established in 1946. This ONR program deserves a great deal of credit for keeping the United States ahead of the world in many areas of technology. Federal support, through the ONR, made it possible for Stanford University to create an outstanding program in electronics in the two decades after the war….Stanford could not have made these important contributions in electronic research and education without the finding provided by ONR. The ‘Silicon Valley’ could not have happened without this federal support to Stanford University.

 

“Federal funding of R & D should emphasize basic research, since it has been shown that adequate finding of basic research in all promising areas of technology will have a high payoff over the long run. Development, on the other hand, will be done better by the private business sector.

 

“The imaginative application of scientific knowledge to create new products, new business enterprises and new industries is called innovation. The economic and social climate of the United States has fostered innovation from the early days of the Republic. Yankee ingenuity it was called in the 19^th century. The combination of pioneering attitudes, unlimited risk capital, incentives to innovate and new technical knowledge have always made up the magic formula for the development of new products and the building of new industries, as well as productivity improvement in the old.

 

“Serious questions are being raised as to whether pioneering attitudes are disappearing in the United States. Societal attitudes that advocate no growth, claim big is bad, and express increasing dissatisfaction with the material side of life, probably combine to foster the idea that increasing productivity should not have a high priority on the list of human endeavors. The availability of risk capital has been reduced by federal tax policy, and other government policies have reduced incentives and established formidable hurdles in the path of technical innovation.

 

“The changes in federal tax policy in 1970, which increased the capital-gains tax, effectively dried up sources of risk capital for the establishment of new technical enterprises in the United States.

 

“A Small Business Administration study showed that new capital acquired by small firms through public offerings of equity dropped from a level in 1969 of 548 offerings, which raised nearly 1.5 billion dollars, to 4 offerings in 1975, which raised 16 million dollars.

 

“Fortunately, the capital-gains tax rate was reduced last year, and venture capital is again becoming available for new and small business enterprises, where a great deal of innovation takes place.”

 

Packard turns to stock options and says that “During the late 1950s and early 1960s when a great many new electronics companies were being established, the availability of stock options caused many scientists and engineers to leave older established firms and cast their lot with newly formed firms. If the firm became successful, the rewards were great, for then the stock option was exercised, the stock had considerable value. The gain was not taxed until the stock was sold.

 

“The recipient could either hold the stock in the hope of further gain or sell it and pay the tax  from time to time as funds were needed.”

 

“Congress, in an action to prevent what it thought was a tax loophole, made stock options taxable when exercised, and the recipient usually had to sell the stock to pay the tax. To compound the problem,  an SEC

regulation prevented the person from selling the stock for a considerable time after it was received if the person involved had a management role.

 

“In effect stock options as incentives for technical people to follow their pioneering spirit were largely eliminated. There is now an effort to restore the stock-option incentive, and to do so would restore an important stimulus for technical people to undertake risky, but potentially profitable ventures in newly established enterprises.”

 

Next, Packard turns to the area of government regulations since 1070, and the negative effect the growth of this added paper work has had on the ability of engineers to design better production equipment and methods.

 

“In many cases,” he says, “technical people have been required to spend much of their time dealing with regulatory problems instead of doing the kind of engineering and scientific work that would otherwise contribute to productivity improvement.

 

“Government regulations, in fact, may be the largest and most important factor in the decline of productivity in the United States. Regulations have been a serious problem in every aspect of industrial expansion. The nuclear power industry may represent the worst of this situation.

 

“It should require from four to five years to design, build and bring on line a new power plant, but regulatory procedures have extended the time required three fold. It now takes from twelve to fifteen years to bring a new plant on line. We may reach the point where it will be impossible to build a nuclear power plant or anything else in the United States because of excessive regulation.

 

“Regulatory procedures are causing costly delays in even the most non-controversial projects. I am involved in building an aquarium on the shore of Monterey Bay. Although everyone thinks it is a great idea, it is taking a full year to get approvals from all of the agencies involved. Ten years ago, only a month or so would have been required. It is impossible to keep architects and engineers working productively in this kind of a situation.

 

“Regulations have seriously reduced the productivity of new product development in every industry. The introduction of new drugs has become much more expensive and time consuming, and even in the development of electronic instruments, which have few health and safety problems, the regulatory agencies involved have increased development time and cost.

 

“The impact of government regulation on small or newly forming enterprises is even more serious. The OSHA code book contains some 28,000 regulations, and OSHA is only  one of many, many regulatory agencies. It is utterly impossible for an individual entrepreneur starting a new business to know understand and deal with all of these regulatory matters and still have any time or energy left to deal with the mainstream work of his enterprise. It is not surprising that fewer new technically oriented firms are being started today. What is surprising is that there are any.

 

“We need to find a way to apply more common sense judgment to matters of regulations that we can continue to preserve and protect all the important things in our society…things like the environment, individual dignity and the freedom to innovate and produce.

 

“From my experience I have concluded that there is a significant decline in productivity because of the changes in societal attitudes I have already alluded to, and also changes in managerial attitudes and policies.

 

“Specifically, if management people developed a better appreciation of the influence of technology on productivity, basic research would receive more support in the private sector. If management people put more emphasis on long-term performance instead of quarter-to-quarter or even year-to-year results, better decisions that affect productivity would be made.

 

“In conclusion, there are a number of things the federal government can do to improve the productivity of our economy. The government can and should give a higher priority to increasing productivity in every action that is taken which has a significant impact on the economy. This applies to tax policy, regulatory policy, regulatory policy and policies that affect federal support of R & D.

 

“I believe the private sector can and should do a better job as well. I believe productivity would improve if managers place more emphasis on long-term performance, as I mentioned earlier.

 

“If both the federal government and the private business sector gave productivity a higher priority among all of their other concerns, this would also influence the attitude of the general public. It would help bring about a general realization that there can be no improvement in the economic well-being of the average individual without an improvement in the overall productivity of our economy.

 

“To the extent the importance of productivity improvement to the welfare of the individual is understood and accepted, I am convinced a better climate for productivity will be established.”

 

1/3/80, Copy of typewritten text of speech, double spaced and all capitals for easier reading at podium. Many handwritten notations by Packard. (These were incorporated in the text above.)

1/3/80, Two copies of a printed booklet containing Packard’s speech

1/3/80, Earlier draft of Packard’s speech in his handwriting

1/3/80, Earlier typewritten draft of speech

1/30/80, Copy of letter sent to conference participants from Martin Feldstein of NBER,  with a ‘summary of our discussions at Key Biscayne’

1/3-4/80, Copy of typewritten program for the conference

3/15/79, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein giving the results of research on the effects of inflation on the taxation of corporate income.

9/14/79, Copy of an internal HP memo to Packard from Austin Marx, HP Economist, discussing U. S. competitiveness in world markets.

8/23/79, Letter to Packard inviting him to present a paper on the above subject. Attached to this letter is a copy of  a statement [in 1939] by Dorothy Thompson on the ‘Signs of Decay,’ [in a democracy] for which she credits Plato.

10/4/79, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein saying he is delighted that Packard is willing to participate in the conference

10/12/79, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein discussing plans for the conference

10/18/79, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein enclosing a copyright form for his signature. The agreement dated 10/30/79 is attached.

11/15/79, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein asking that he bring a copy of his speech for NBER use

12/7/79, Copy of a memo to all conference participants from Maureen Kay of NBER, discussing handling of expenses

1/10/80, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein thanking him for participating in their conference and presenting his ‘stimulating’ address

2/19/80, Note from Martin Feldstein sending him a paperweight which was made up for the NBER in commemoration of their sixtieth anniversary

3/4/80, Copy of a letter to Martin Feldstein from Packard thanking him for his note of Feb. 19

3/21/80, Copy of a memo to authors of papers given at the NBER conference asking that they return the copies of each manuscript sent for review

8/19/80, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein discussing copies of the publication NBER prepared resulting from the conference

1/6/81, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein enclosing an advance copy of the volume of papers presented at the conference

1/28/81, Letter to Packard from Charles E. McLure, Jr. of the NBER saying they are sending 100 copies of their publication, even though Packard didn’t order any

10/30/81, Letter to Packard from Martin Feldstein thanking him for HP’s contribution to the Bureau

 

1/79 Copy of a paper  prepared by the Bureau  titled ‘Inflation and the Taxation of Capital Income in the Corporate Sector’

1/79, Copy of an address, titled ‘The Comparative Advantage of Government’ given by George P. Shultz at the conference in Key Biscayne

December 1979, Copy of demographic tables concerning population size and composition

Box 4, Folder 30 – General Speeches

 

May 19, 1980, Challenges of the Decade of the 80s, The 1980 National Computer Conference, Anaheim, CA

 

5/19/80, Typewritten text of speech, all in capitals, double spaced, with several handwritten notations by Packard

 

Packard says he would like to make a few comments about some of the trends he sees in the computer business. He says these include “technology, incentives for innovation, people, capital and productivity.”

 

“One of the positive trends in this industry,” he says, “…has been the increasing number of participants. I remember computer conferences in the late 1950s when the papers and exhibits were dominated by a small number of firms. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say those conferences were dominated by one firm and included a small number of others.”

 

Packard notes that there are people from over a hundred organizations at this conference, and ever 400 exhibitors. “This is a good trend, and I believe it will continue. I do not see shake out in the industry in the next decade, rather I see an increasing number of participants.”

 

In giving reasons why he predicts this trend, he says, “…first, I believe both the hardware and software are becoming easier to deal with…High level languages are making computers more friendly to the users and many more people are now writing their own programs. Add to this the fact that computers are invading every facet of our economy, in fact, every facet of our society.

 

“For example, I see that at this conference you will be discussing computers in the laboratory, the factory, the office and the home. Applications include the library, the hospital, and postal service, solar energy and process control, and I note from your program that the movies, TV sporting events, and the performing arts are now coming under computer control.

 

“These factors combine to make it more possible today than it was ten years ago for a new or small enterprise to find an important area, make a useful contribution and build a successful business in the computer industry.”

 

Although he says the U.S. has been able to maintain world leadership in computers and computer technology, he says he believes this leadership will be challenged in the next decade.

 

“Japan, with industry and government working together unlike the U.S., has made a commitment to become a world leader in computers. Japan in recent years has become very competitive in many industries including some areas of high technology. They have made a strong commitment to quality in products and during the last several years they have become very competitive in IC and other electronic products used in computers. Our company is buying substantial amounts of components from Japan simply because they are substantially better in quality and reliability. If U.S. industry does not keep a high commitment to quality and reliability, Japanese computers could be real competitors in the decade ahead.”

 

Packard sees the U. S. challenged by computer manufacturers in Europe as well. “…but the Soviet computer industry will not be a major competitor except in the Soviet market…. The Peoples Republic of China also desperately wants to develop a modern computer capability. China is a long way behind, and during the next decade it will be a potential customer, not a potential competitor. “

 

Packard says it is important that the U.S. maintain its position of leadership in the computer industry and he mentions some matters which he says will be important if the U.S. is to do so.

 

“In addition to quality and product reliability, continuing world leadership by the U.S. computer industry will be dependent on continuing U.S. world leadership in the basic technology we use. The U.S. has been the world leader in computer science, solid state electronics, large scale integrated circuits, memory technology, and in many other areas of essential technology needed to develop, manufacture and apply the best computers.

 

“Japan and several other countries are increasing their R. & D in the fields of computer technology, and if they gain a significant advantage in any area of technology important to future computer development, it could become a serious matter for our industry.

 

“Much of the basic research in this country is being done in the laboratories of a few of the larger companies, notably the Bell Labs and IBM. It is to the credit of these organizations that they have made the technology they have generated available to the industry on reasonable terms. There has been good research at other, smaller firms and at a number of university laboratories. But I believe it is essential for this industry to make a larger commitment to more basic research.”

 

Packard says “…it is important for every computer firm to maintain a high level of research and development in its own laboratories. Smaller firms can seldom justify doing much basic research, but what they do is sometimes very important. They can often be more innovative in taking advantage of technology that is already available – development rather than basic research.”

 

Packard encourages “…every firm to try to find some good university program where work is being done in technology relevant to your company’s interest and help accelerate this work with more financial support. Even small firms can help support basic research at universities and can sometimes get a head start on important new technology in this way.”

 

“Some have suggested that the industry should ask for help from the federal government for more support of research and development with grants, more research contracts or other direct funding.

 

While more federal funding might be helpful, I would much prefer to see computer companies commit more funds to support increased research and development in their own laboratories or at university laboratories with the close collaboration of their technical people.”

 

Packard says some people have suggested tax credits as a way of encouraging more R. & D., but he says “I believe they would be very difficult to administer so as not to pay for much research and development that would have been done anyway.

 

“One interesting argument for tax credits is that they would help those firms which already have a high level of R. & D. since such firms create more new jobs, have the most export business, and thus help with the balance of payments – thus it would be in the national interest to give them more help.”

 

But Packard says “I firmly believe that more research and development funded by the industry, and under its close supervision, would be the best course to take. I can think of no better insurance for maintaining world wide leadership than increased investment in research and development made and supervised by people in the industry.

 

Continuing to look at ways for the United States to maintain its position of leadership in innovation and productivity in the computer industry, Packard says that  “An industry environment that nurtures creativity and productivity is essential.

 

“The industry has generally enjoyed such an environment over the last several decades. There have been relatively few government controls or restraints on us.

 

“Little air pollution, water pollution or noise pollution are generated; product safety problems are not difficult and governmental regulation of the industry has been minimal, although production of semi-conductors and PC boards has been made more difficult and expensive by environmental controls. There has been some anti-trust activity against some larger companies, which, in my view has been hardly justified.”

 

Packard points out that as the industry becomes larger and more pervasive in society, governmental interest is likely to increase. “I think,” he says, “you should be careful not to invite more governmental involvement in your industry by asking the government for more help with your problems. With the possible exception of help in matters like trade agreements where government-to-government negotiation is necessary, it is better not to have the government involved. The federal government almost always has its price for its help, and the benefits are often not worth the price.

 

“Despite this warning, as the industry continues to grow in the decade ahead, it will also become more mature and will have to pay more attention to its relationships with the government. I am sure there will be pressures for more legislation and regulatory action that will impact on us, sometimes in negative ways. Chief Executive Officers will have to take more time in dealing with the government at the federal, state and local levels as the 1980s unfold. They must not back away from doing so. The Chief Executive Officer is always more effective than a lower level executive in dealing with your senator or your congressman Because the time to influence legislation is while it is being considered, you must become involved early in any proposed legislation that will affect your company or the industry.”

 

“The Business Roundtable is an organization composed only of Chief Executive Officers and has been very effective in dealing with Federal legislation and regulation. The California Roundtable has been organized here in this State to deal more effectively with the State Government, and similar organizations are being established in other states.”

 

“Dealing with new legislation and governmental relations problems will take more time in the decade of the 1980s than they have taken in the past, and they must be given a high priority.

 

“I would encourage everyone in the computer business to take a more active part in working with government people on legislation and regulations at all levels.

 

“Your efforts should not be directed at getting the government to solve your problems, for if they can solve them at all, it will be in a way you won’t like. Your efforts in working with the government should be to preserve the environment which will allow you the freedom of action to continue into the decade of the 1980s the great progress this industry has produced in the 1960s and 1970s.”

 

Packard talks about the need for technically qualified people, saying, “…the availability of enough highly educated, skilled and motivated people will be an important determinant of progress in the decade ahead. There has been great competition among the firms in this industry for scientists, engineers, technicians – technical people of all kinds. The colleges and universities have not been graduating as many people as we can use. There will be a more difficult problem in the next decade.

 

“Demographic changes will reduce the number of young people aged eighteen to twenty-four by an estimated 21 per cent between 1981 and 1995.

 

“If educated and skilled people are to be available to the industry at a level adequate to support continuing growth, something will have to be done to educate a larger share of young people in the disciplines needed.

 

“Many firms are already working on this problem by increasing in-house education and training, but colleges and universities will continue to be the main source for the people we will need. I believe the industry should undertake to increase its support of those universities and colleges which are educating the kind of people the industry needs. For us, to increase our support of the kind of higher education on which we are so dependent is a high priority in self interest.”

 

Packard suggests individual firms and industry associations make college and university support a high priority, and he gives a rule of thumb amount of at least one percent of pre-tax earnings, adding that “…industry growth will be limited in the decade of the 1980s unless enough of the right kind of people are available.”

 

“It is not enough to provide more resources for colleges and universities to educate more young people in the disciplines we will need. More needs to be done also to encourage the brightest and best young people to choose an educational program that has potential benefit for our industry.

 

“Career patterns are often set at an early age and, furthermore, if pre-college education is not adequate, young people will not qualify for the kind of an education they need to be future contributors to our industry.

 

“For this reason, whatever you can do to stimulate the interest of young people at the high school level in computer and computer-related science could be of great benefit to your  industry in the years ahead. Young people seem to have an innate interest in computers and computer-related activities and whatever the industry can do to stimulate that interest could have a very large pay-off in the future.”

 

Saying that, while the computer industry has not been especially capital intensive in the past, equipment is becoming more expensive, and he sees capital requirements as likely to increase at a moderate rate.

 

“Risk capital has been an important factor in stimulating innovation by making it possible for an entrepreneur with a new idea to obtain the necessary funds. Also, stock options have stimulated innovation by making it possible for a person without capital to gain substantial reward for creative work.”

 

“Stock options were made very much less valuable when the law was changed to make the stock gain taxable when the option was exercised rather than when the stock was sold.

 

“The capital gains tax was reduced last year and more risk capital is becoming available. A return to the previous rules on stock options would help maintain a better environment for innovation. I believe the Congress is receptive to a change in the tax law, and I encourage you to make your voices heard on any changes in the tax laws that will encourage capital formation and provide more reward for innovation. These are immensely important matters for this industry.”

 

Packard says he believes the computer industry “…is in a position to make very large contributions to improvements in productivity throughout business and industry in the decade ahead.

 

“As I look at the application of computers in the affairs of my company, from computer aided design through factory and office management, to world wide communications, and in many other areas, it is clear that my company is vastly more productive today in every facet of its business because of the computers we are using. Moreover, we are doing many important jobs that simply could not be done without computers.

 

“I am sure the great improvements in productivity we have achieved within our company with computers, and I might add, largely our own computers, accurately mirrors what is going on today throughout industry and business. I clearly see productivity improvement from computers continuing at an accelerated pace throughout the next decade.

 

“I believe also,” he says, that productivity within the industry will continue at a high rate. I have already mentioned the importance of new technology, highly educated and motivated people, an environment that nurtures innovation and adequate capital, including risk capital.

 

“These are the ingredients of productivity wherever they are found, and I am sure they will abound in this industry throughout the decade of the 1980s.

 

“In conclusion, I want to repeat that I am very bullish on the future of the computer industry. You all can be very proud of what you have done since the pioneering efforts of Atanasoff, Eckert, and Mauchly [See 5/15/80 below]. In thinking about the great progress you have made, I am reminded of an old adage my father used to quote to me when I was a young man in high school in the 1920s, over fifty years ago. He would always tell me when he thought I had done a good job on some project, ‘Good work deserves still more good work,’ I commend that adage to this great industry as a guide for the decade of the 1980s”

 

3/17/80, Internal HP memo from Ross Snyder to Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary), suggesting he may wish to fly down to Los Angeles in a company plane with a group of HP computer people.

3/24/80, Memo to Packard from Ross Snyder telling him the conference people would like to know the title of Packard’s speech.

3/31/80, Letter to Packard from Herbert B. Safford, General Chairman 1980 National Computer Conference, inviting him to speak to their conference on the morning of May 19, 1980.

4/10/80, Copy of a letter to Herbert B. Safford form Ross Snyder, giving the title of Packard’s speech as ‘Challenges of the Decade of the 80s’

5/12/80, Internal HP memo from Ross Snyder to HP representatives who will be at the conference, giving answers to questions they may get from the press

5/12/80, Copy of  a memo from Ross Snyder to HP representatives at the conference giving travel details

5/15/80, HP memo to Packard from Ross Snyder giving some comments on the draft of his speech

5/15/80, Memo to Packard from Ross Snyder cautioning him on his reference to Atanasoff, Eckert, and Mauchly. Snyder’s comments are hereby quoted:

 

‘Here are my reasons for suggesting that you omit any reference to the invention of the first electronic computer, and instead refer to ‘the pioneering efforts of Atanasoff, Eckert and Mauchly.”

 

‘My advisers are Larry Curran, news editor of Electronics, David Gardner and Linda Flato of Datamation, all of whom reported on the Atanasoff law suit.

 

‘In late 1973 Judge Roy Larsen of the U. S. Federal District Court issued a decision in the Honeywell/Univac case, after ten or twelve years of litigation. The decision was not appealed. The court concluded that Atanasoff, in the winter of 1937-38, constructed an electronic computer incorporating the stored program and binary logic, as well as sequential computation. The court also accepted evidence that Mauchly visited Atanasoff’s laboratory in the years before Mauchly and Eckert designed ENIAC. The computer establishment, my advisers say, gradually has begun to credit Atanasoff, without wanting to subtract from the extraordinary accomplishments of Mauchly and Eckert. More and more, when references are made to the first electronic computers, all three names are being mentioned.’

 

5/22/80, Letter to Packard from Robert J. Baumann asking for a copy of his speech

5/28/80, Letter to Packard from Norman G. Einspruch asking for a copy of his speech

5/28/80, Letter to Packard from William C. Coker, taking issue with some of Packard’s comments

6/6/80, Copy of a letter from Packard to William C. Coker saying  “The purpose of my comments about semiconductor components quality was to stir up our industry a bit. I think, as a matter of fact, they are already stirred up and probably the situation is improving.’

6/?/80, Letter to Packard from Gene Chao, Ph.D.,Tektronix, asking for a copy of the speech

6/3/80, Letter to Packard from R. L. Simpson, Alberta Solicitor General, asking for a copy of the speech

6/4/80, Letter to Packard from Curtis W. Garrett, asking for a copy of the speech

6/13/80, Letter to Packard from Herbert B. Safford thanking him for speaking at the conference

 

5/22/80, Page from San Jose Mercury News reviewing Packard’s speech

6/80, Copy of ‘afips’ ?? newsletter which covers the conference

2/1/81, Page from San Jose Mercury News with article about Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 31 – General Speeches

 

December 1, 1980, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Seattle, WA

 

Packard was invited to address this group and talk about any subject of his choice. When pressed for a title for their publicity purposes he suggested “Why don’t you use a title ‘Observations on the National Scene,’ that will give me the opportunity to talk about either politics, electronics, or some thing else.”

 

12/1/80, Handwritten notes for his speech, much of it in outline format, written by Packard. No typewritten transcription of the actual speech was made.

 

Packard says he is going to share some speculations about the coming Regan [Reagan] Administration, and review some trends in the national scene going back to 1965.

 

“The outcome of the election of 1980 indicates some basic changes in political scene from 1965 – 1970; basic changes in our society.

 

“The outcome was determined by a more active role by conservatives – perception of failure of liberal programs.

 

“Regan as President will have more leeway in what he can do – constrained by economic climate.

 

“The economic climate cannot be changed much unless the political climate can be changed.

 

“Tax cut – personal, capital formation. Increased Defense spending – balanced budget. 1980 will have been a watershed election for our country.

 

“Bring more experienced people to Administration. Have to achieve a better balance among political and social factions – whether or not remains to be seen.

 

“Trends in political scene – traditional, conservative, liberals.

 

“Something new began to develop about 1965 – activism, civil rights, environmental concern”

 

“In 1970s limited resources concept – small is beautiful – Viet Nam was a catalyst. Activism on campus, Europe, Japan, Red Guard, cultural revolution in PRC.

 

“One important factor: President Reagan: people want change,

 

“1979 – 62% –  Americans [felt we] should get used to the fact that our wealth is limited; we are not likely to become better off.

 

1970 – 30%” –  Traditional American attitude: American Dream, life will be better if not for me certainly for my children.”

 

“President Carter elected because people want change. The Senate outcome perhaps a better indicator.

 

“Not just honesty – a real feeling that there is something wrong with what has been going on – a new approach is needed.

 

“Daniel Yankelovitch –  public attitude survey firm.

 

“Industrial Vision

Egalitarian Vision

Quality of Life Vision

 

“We are moving toward better balance between these three sectors of society.

 

“Industrial Vision

Traditional American conservatism

Protestant Ethic

Hard work – achievement, enterprise

A person gets ahead by effort and ability – not entitlement

Great wealth  – more for everybody

 

“Egalitarian Vision

Traditional American Liberalism

Government solves problems

High level social justice

People deserve benefits by entitlement rather than earning

Socialism and Communism (not Communists)

 

“Quality of Life Vision

Downgrade material wealth

The ‘good life,’ leisure

Physical and psychological fitness

Better with less

Ranks professional and affluent people

You may recognize sons and daughters

 

“These three divisions [are] over simplifications

 

“Activities in 1965:President Kennedy, Johnson, Viet Nam

 

“By 1968 – Country badly fractionated: Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace

 

“Nixon came to office – hostile Congress, hostile press

Had to solve Viet Nam

Had to build base for future

 

“My personal experience:

“Reduced Defense [budget] – 3 billion – 6 weeks

 

“1969 Balanced budget

 

“Nixon Doctrine

Cooperation with allies

Confrontation to Negotiation

Strength to deter aggression

 

“Moved to increase domestic programs [as] percent of Federal budget

 

[Packard writes out this chart:]

 

“[Budget Item-billions]           1970                                        1972

 

Defense                                   40.8                                         33.8

Human Relations                    36.9                                         42.0

EPA                                        262M                                      2.143

Water pollution                       252M                                      2.0

Aid to Transportation            24                                            38                                (non highway)

Model Cities                           86                                            450

Open space land                     43                                            100

Child Care                               300                                          900

Income security                      40                                            60

Grants to States                      6                                              11

 

“Here we had a President, certainly considered conservative; most closely Industrial Vision when it came to domestic programs, looking very much like Egalitarian or Quality of Life

 

“Many of these things done by Congress.

 

“Nixon recognized that he had to build a constituency to be re-elected. He acted in response to the attitude reflected in society.

 

“How impartial imperative for self-survival is.

 

Cabinet meeting fall of 1971, not rendering judgment on President Nixon.

 

“Gov. Regan man on a platform very much like Nixon – first term – what will he do – be able to do.

 

“1972, Nixon won – He was perceived to be strong in international affairs. He could get substantial support from liberals.

 

“McGovern was too radical for even those troubled times.

 

“Watergate – Lost years for America

 

“Ford – Period of healing

 

“Carter badly beat Ford, but people wanted a change

 

“Honesty Regan and inept Senate clearly a change in public attitude.

 

“A swing toward conservatism, a disillusion with liberal programs.

 

“The trend was supported by more active business ‘think tanks, AEI vs. Brookings, Business Roundtable

 

“Business activity in State races

 

“Regan will come into office with a much better political climate.

 

“The hold-over members of both houses will have read the handwriting on the wall. A honeymoon of six months or perhaps more.

“Want to be on board if it works

 

“Want to say they gave him a chance of it does not.

 

No one thinks we can turn the clock back to the good old days.

 

“Best we can hope for is a better balance among the three political segments a better balance in the decade of the 1980s between the Industrial Vision, the Egalitarian Vision and the Quality of Life Vision.

 

“Each of us can help if we take a more active role in the political process whenever we have the chance.

 

“I for one continue to be optimistic about the future. I terms of my company, I see the opportunities we have ahead to be as good if not even better than the opportunities we had in the past. When I sit with your Board [Boeing Company Board of Directors] and see the new programs you are working on here at Boeing my optimism for the future is further confirmed, and other Boards.

 

“Business and industry in America has not been helped by our Federal Government in recent years. My optimism about the future of America has been reinforced by the outcome of the 1980 election.

 

“Let’s hope and pray President Regan has the wisdom and ability to lead our country in a new direction in the decade of the 1980s.

 

November, 1980, Copy of AIAA  flyer announcing the forthcoming dinner meeting where Packard will speak

6/24/80, Letter to Packard from Jerome C. Baer, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, inviting Packard to speak to their membership

7/28/80, Copy of a letter to J. C. Baer, at Boeing, saying he will be able to attend the dinner and speak to the group

10/16/80, Copy of a letter from Packard to J. C. Baer. In response to a phone call from Baer asking for the title of Packard’s address, Packard says he doesn’t have one yet, but suggests ‘Observations on the National Scene,’ as a general area for discussion.

11/10/80, Letter to Packard from J.C. Baer offering to help in travel arrangements.

12/3/80, Letter to Packard from J. C. Baer thanking Packard for speaking to their group.

Box 4, Folder 32 – General Speeches

 

November 4, 1981, Data Processing Management Association, San Francisco, CA

 

11/4/81, Typewritten text of speech

 

Packard says he would like to make some observations about the future of this [electronics] industry. A future that he says is “tremendous.”

 

“One of the things I think that we ought to continually remind ourselves is that this industry really has only two basic assets. The most important, of course, is people….the success in the future is going to be very highly dependent on whether the industry is going to be able to attract and develop enough people to do all the jobs that are going to need to be done.

 

“The other important ingredient in the future, of course, is knowledge and as I look back on what has happened in this industry we find that it’s been some breakthroughs in basic knowledge that provided the foundation on which we could move ahead and in a very rapid way. Of course, the most recent examples – two or three very simple ones – when we were able to move from core memories to solid-state memories, that opened up a whole new ball game of things that you could do….And then, of course, the more fundamental step from individual core corners to the large scale integrated circuits was another breakthrough.

 

Packard stresses the importance of maintaining good relationships with colleges and universities. “I feel very strongly about this matter because the success of our company was to a very large degree dependent on and determined by the close relationship we had with Stanford University in the early days. That relationship provided two things for us. It provided some new ideas and over the years there sere several instruments that we were able to develop and put on the market because the ideas were generated in the laboratories at Stanford University. The very first one, of course, was the audio-oscillator that Bill Hewlett developed which was the beginning of our company. The other thing that our relationship with Stanford University has done for our business is to provide us a continual supply of bright, young people to come into our business and help build it.

 

“There has been a good deal of concern in recent years about whether this country is keeping up in its level of research and development and, of course, when we talk about research and development we generally talk about a wide range of things and very seldom are we talking about the same thing. But I think the important element that we need to put more emphasis on is on the field of basic research. Most of our companies, and I say this without intending to be deprecating in any way, but most of our companies develop very little new knowledge. We’re generally users of knowledge, not creators of knowledge. And I think that’s got to be changed. There are some companies that have been creators of knowledge. Of course, the Bell Telephone Laboratories is probably the best example and I feed, since talking about that, as a matter of fact, I’m going to testify this Friday against the government and it will be a very serious disaster to this industry for the telephone company to be broken up because the Bell Labs, as you know, have been the source of a great deal of  knowledge that has benefited all of our companies and the entire electronic industry.”

 

“Now, the other aspect …is people. And here again, the colleges and universities and schools of all levels are important to us…. Our company has found over the years that if we can develop a close relationship with a number of colleges and universities, we have an opportunity to attract the best people and we also have an opportunity to influence the content and the direction of the courses and I think industry and education working together are going to be a very important element for us to work on to determine our future.”

 

Packard switches to a discussion of productivity, actually, productivity and reliability “because,” as he says, “they kind of go together. …Our industry has an exceedingly good record in this regard and it’s really because we have had increasing technology….I think that our contribution to productivity and reliability has been very, very important. There’s no question but that computers are going to be more and more pervasive in every aspect of our society and you know that better than I and this, of course, is the thing that makes it so exciting. But it means that for these devices to be effective they’re going to have to be reliable; they’re going to have to be inexpensive and, fortunately, the industry is moving in that direction and I think generating some very, very good progress.

 

“The question of reliability of course is one that is extremely important. One criticism has been made of our industry – at least some parts of our industry – that we tend to have too short a range in our outlook. This, of course, is encouraged by the investment community that’s looking at your quarterly reports and if your earnings are up a little but, well, the price of your stock goes up and if the earnings are down a little bit….It’s a very bad incentive. We really ought to be thinking about things four or five years out or ten years out. I think most of the companies do that, but I would encourage you to keep that on the agenda and to encourage everyone who’s involved in this business to forget about what’s going to happen next quarter; let’s think about what’s going to be happening the next five or ten years because it’s these long-term commitments that are important.

 

“Now of course, all of this has something to do with the current worry about Japanese competition and I thought I might say a word or two about that….I might say that our company has had a joint venture in Japan for some 15 years now and we have a little familiarity with the Japanese management practices and some of the things they’re doing. Matter of fact, I’m kind of amused by the current emphasis and enthusiasm about the Japanese management approach because when we joined forces with our Japanese partner, we didn’t really understand very much about Japanese culture and we insisted that we were going to run this joint venture our way, not their way. And fortunately they thought well enough of us or were intimidated or something and they agreed to do so….And it worked out quite well and after a few years our Japanese partner decided that, well, maybe they ought to pick up some of the principles that we had introduced in our joint venture and use those in the parent Japanese company.”

 

“I do not think that the Japanese threat is anywhere near as bad as a great many people would make it out to be. The real concern came from their invasion in the LSI business, particularly some memory chips and the problem really was that our own industry here kind of fell down on the job. Our companies had a policy to buy American components even at some price differential up to 10 percent or so. If the quality isn’t good, we can’t afford to buy them at any price and in this case there were certain components where the Japanese quality was simply so much better than the American quality that we had no choice but to buy Japanese components in that area….I’ve been doing my best to talk to all of my friends in the LSI very sensitive about it and working very hard and I don’t think that aspect of it is going to continue.”

 

“Well, you can judge I’m really very optimistic about the future for this industry. I’m kind of jealous that here you fellows are only 30 years along in a course of a long life time and I’m sort of at the end of my professional career….”

 

“Let me just close by passing on a comment that my father made to me early in my life that I’ve remembered and used on many occasions: You men and women have made a tremendous contribution in your industry and just remember that good work deserves still more good work. Thank you very much.”

 

11/2-4/81, Copy of printed program for the conference

5/12/81, Internal HP memo to Packard from Roy Verley saying that the Data Processing Management Association would like to nominate Packard as one seven candidates for their annual ‘Distinguished Information Sciences Award.’ Verley mentions that Paul Ely thinks it would be advantageous from a marketing stand point.

5/19/81, Copy of a note from Packard to Verley saying he is not anxious for any more awards, but if he and Ely think he could be of help he would be willing to be nominated.

6/29/81, Copy of a letter to Donald E. Price from Lane Webster of HP Public Relations submitting a nomination form.

7/29/81, Letter to Packard from Roger Fenwick President of the DPMA informing him that he has been selected as the recipient of DPMA’s Distinguished Information Sciences Award for 1981

7/29/81, Letter to Packard from Edward J. Palmer Executive Director of the DPMA congratulating him on being selected as the 1981 recipient of the Distinguished Information Sciences Award, and giving information on the conference.

8/19/81, Copy of a letter from Packard to Roger Fenwick thanking him for the selection.

8/25/81, Copy of a letter from Lane Webster of HP to Roger Fenwick sending the required registration form

8/20/81, Memo from Roy Verley to Packard offering to help with Packard’s speech if need be

9/18/81,Copy of a memo from Packard to Roy Verley suggesting they give him a short memo listing a few subjects they think would be of interest to the Data Processing Management Association people

10/13/81, Memo from Roy Verley to Packard telling him that the Business Computer Group is about to release 20 new products that are designed to simplify computer use to the extent that everyone in the office can use computers. He adds that DPMA staff has told him that many of their membership are ‘old line computer gurus’ and are resisting the decentralization of data processing and fear the advance of minicomputers.

10/22/81, Copy of an HP memo from Betty Gerard to the Public Relations staff giving information about the conference

10/30/81, Letter to Packard from John Diebold of  ‘The Diebold Group, Inc., congratulating him on the award

 

 

Box 4, Folder 33 – General Speeches

 

November 18, 1981, County Supervisors Association of California, Fresno, CA

 

11/18/81, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

No written text of Packard’s luncheon speech was retained. He was invited by Quentin Kopp, President of the Association, to speak at their 87^th Annual Meeting. In his invitation to Packard, Kopp mentions ‘pressures’ which California counties are facing, such as affordable housing, efficient transportation, jobs need for skilled workers, health care, capital financing,  and he suggests Packard talk about ways ‘the public and private sectors can forge new alliances to meet these challenges.’

 

The Sacramento Newsletter, commenting on the meeting quotes Packard as saying “Let’s work together to solve our problems, “ and they add that he called for greater involvement by business in helping to solve economic and social problems, & recommended generous use of “good old common sense.”

 

The Fresno Bee newspaper says that Packard called for “greater involvement by business leaders in helping to solve government problems,” and a better public-private dialogue leading to “something seriously lacking – good old common sense.”

 

The paper adds that, when talking to reporters after the luncheon, he said “Fresno has a lot of qualities his company looks for as a place to do business,” but he added that, “we’re trying to limit our expansion in California.”

 

11/18-20/81, Copy of the program for the meeting

8/18/81, Letter to Packard from Quentin Kopp, President of the County Supervisors Association and Denny Valentine, Executive Director. They invite Packard to speak at the annual meeting of their association.

8/25/81, Copy of a letter from Packard to Quentin Kopp and Denny Valentine saying he accepts their invitation

10/28/81, Letter to all speakers at the meeting from Peggy Brownlow, PR Director, asking for an outline or a copy of remarks they plan to give at the meeting

11/13/81, Internal HP memo from Dave Kirby to Packard discussing members of his staff who will accompany him to Fresno

11/17/81, Internal HP memo from LaJune Bush to Packard giving information on public-private relationships

11/19/81, Clipping from The Fresno Bee newspaper referred to above

11/30/81, Copy of the Sacramento Newsletter referred to above

Undated, unnamed newspaper column clipping mentioning a humorous problem involving Packard at the County Supervisors Association meeting when a photographer was trying to take his picture but someone else was inadvertently blocking the view

Box 4, Folder 34 – General Speeches

6/24/81, Letter to Packard from James W. Glanville, Chairman of The John Fritz Medal Board of Award, informing Packard he has been selected to receive this award and asking that he select which of the member engineering societies he would like to make the presentation.

7/10/81, Copy of a letter from Packard to James W. Glanville saying he feels “humble” and “pleased” to have been selected to receive the John Fritz Award. Packard suggest he receive the Award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers “since that is my profession.”

7/2/81, Letter to Packard from Eric Herz of the IEEE saying that they are pleased to hear that he has been selected to receive the John Fritz Award, and expressing the hope that he will ask the IEEE to make the presentation.

7/10/81, Copy of a letter from Packard to Eric Herz  saying it would be “most appropriate” for the IEEE to make the presentation – and the date of May 23, 1982, at the week of ‘ELECTRO’ in Boston would be appropriate.

7/20/81, Letter to Packard from John A. Zecca, of the Board of Award, asking for a biography

7/22/81, Letter to Packard from James W. Glanville saying they have noted his request to have the IEEE present the award

8/21/81, Another letter to Packard from John A. Zecca following up on the request for a biography

9/17/81, Copy of the program from the 1981 annual meeting

Box 4, Folder 34 – General Speeches

 

January 11, 1982, Financial Analysts Federation, San Francisco, CA

 

This Technology Conference subtitled  The Second Industrial Revolution: Innovation Through Technology, was sponsored by the Financial Analysts Federation and co-sponsored by the Security Analysts of San Francisco. Packard was the Keynote Speaker on Jan. 11, 1982.

 

1/11/82, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard says he is going to concentrate his comments on the electronics industry – “because, of course, electronics is where I’ve had most of my experience.” And he adds that, “I’m not going to make any comments about what I think the economy is going to do in 1982.”

 

He says it “might be interesting” if he spends a few minutes reminiscing about some of the early days in this industry, “because I have the impression,” he says, “that a lot of you young people think that this combination of technology and risk capital is something that has happened just in the last few years and it’s a completely new phenomenon in the economy.” He proceeds to describe the lengthy list of early inventors as well as others who contributed to the electronic industry.

 

Packard tells how the San Francisco Bay Area was involved in the early days of electronics, or “wireless, as it was called then,” he says. Packard mentions that “A good deal of the fundamental technical work in the field of wireless had been done in Europe with Hertz and Maxell and, of course, Marconi. There were some people here in the San Francisco area that were working in this field and the early transmitters consisted of spark devices and various sources of detectors, which were not capable of transmitting voice.

 

“A  young man by the name of Cy Elwell, who graduated from Stanford about 1905, was engaged by some venture capitalists at that time to look into new patents and new ideas in this field of wireless telegraphy. He looked at these ideas and concluded they were not very attractive, but in the course of this he ran into a patent taken out by a man from Denmark for something called a Poulsen arc.” Packard relates how Mr. Elwell went to Denmark, obtained a license to manufacture these arcs in the U.S., and returned to San Francisco. Packard says he brought two of the arc devices to the Bay Area, adding that David Starr Jordan, then president of Stanford, was one of the investors who contributed funds needed to make this move. “and from that,” Packard says, “came the Federal Telegraph Company.”

 

“The Federal Telegraph Company was established in Palo Alto about 1908. They undertook to build these Poulsen arcs and provided the basic technology that was used in World War II for all the naval transmission, the long range wireless.” Packard tells how Elwell “set up a transmitter in Sacramento and got some Chinese people to talk to their friends in China over this new wireless device. It so intrigued the people he got a lot of money from the Chinese community to support this development.

 

“The interesting thing about this Poulsen arc is that it provided what was really the first fundamental break-through in what has become the electronics field and it provided a basis not only for the development of a very important industry – some new technology in communication – but also, as happened in many of the subsequent basic developments that have come along in our industry, there was a wide range of supplemental developments….Some of you may recall that there was a very large tower down in Palo alto, close to the airport. That tower was erected by the Federal Telegraph Company in the early days as part of the development of this type of transmission.”

 

Packard tells of Lee DeForest who was working for the Federal Telegraph Company at the time he invented the vacuum tube. “…the vacuum tube,” Packard says, “was the fundamental technical breakthrough which has made the electronics industry possible. The point I want to make about it is that although this vacuum tube was invented in 1912, it was really not until 1918 and 1919 and the beginning of the 1920s that the vacuum tube was developed to the point of being a practical device. The Poulsen arc, although it was much less capable of producing high-frequency waves, continued to be built into the 1920s.

 

“…although Lee DeForest came up with the basic idea, [for the vacuum tube], he did not have at that time the capability of building a very good tube and it was the work done by Irving Langmer and Dr.Hall at General Electric and some people at the Bell Telephone Laboratories. The earliest development and application of the vacuum tube was not made by the Federal Telegraph Company, but rather by some of the larger companies in the East, and indeed, the most important early developments were the application of these vacuum tubes to the telephone repeaters.

 

“AT&T and the Western Electric Company were able to develop some very reliable vacuum tubes that were useful in long distance repeaters. By the early 1920s that were able to build vacuum tubes which could serve for radio transmitters and for radio receivers and from that beginning came the radio industry of the 1920s.

 

“It’s interesting to note that in the late 1920s the Federal Telegraph Company was still in existence in Palo alto and a young man named Charlie Litton was hired to work on vacuum tubes. His role was to get around the patents that had been taken out by some of the eastern companies so the Federal Telegraph Company would be able to manufacture the tube which they – actually Lee Deforest – had originally invented. I cite this to show you that for progress in this industry it takes not simply a new idea or a basic technical breakthrough; quite often infrastructure and other technology need to be developed to make these things possible.

 

Packard points out that in the early stages of development the wireless industry became international. The Federal Telegraph Company, which had been established by Cy Elwell in 1908, eventually became the International Telephone and Telegraph Company, with much of its business in Europe. “They built the Poulsen  arcs for the Eiffel Tower transmitter and they also developed a number of associate activities in Europe. So the whole history of radio and electronics from the very early days has been an international activity.

 

Packard says “The early ‘20s were a period of great activity because of the exciting development of this new radio industry and a good many of the companies were originally here in the Bay Area. The dynamic speaker was developed by a fellow named Jensen and that company was established in Oakland. There was a man named Halster who developed a radio direction finder. There was a good deal of activity, but the people found that San Francisco was not a good base for manufacturing and servicing a national market and the electronics industry moved to a large degree to the East, a good many of these firms to Chicago.

 

“I recall when we [at HP] were first getting started in the late 1930s Chicago was really the heart of the radio industry. Not only the firms that had moved from San Francisco, but there were new companies like Motorola getting started and there was a great deal of activity in terms of new organizations. A great many of the firms which started in those days and were very active in the 1920s – a good many of them in this area – have not continued. There was a Remler Company, which was active in making radios here in San Francisco. Heintz and Kaufman, an organization developed by a very ingenious man named Ralph Heintz, who made some important contributions to aircraft radio in the 1920s, had a very important firm here in South San Francisco in the 1930s and early 1940s, which has gone out of business.”

 

“It was…,” Packard says, “the middle of the 1930s when electronics came into its own.” And he tells about Fred Terman who came to Stanford in the mid 1930s as an associate professor.

 

“Although his professional education was in chemical engineering – he got his degree in that field from MIT – he had been interested in amateur radio as a youngster. Herb Hoover, Jr. was also there on the campus and they had quite a little activity in the radio field. Fred Terman undertook to write a textbook in 1932 and 1933 and I met him first in 1933 when I was a junior at Stanford. I had been active in the amateur radio club there and they had a station which was right next to Fred Terman’s laboratory. And he took an interest in his students. One day he stopped me and it turned out that he had gone down and looked up the record I had in every course I had taken, he knew a little bit about my involvement in athletics and he said he thought I had taken all the courses I really needed to take in the regular program; wouldn’t I like to take his graduate course in my senior year, which of course, I was delighted to do.

 

“Fred Terman had written a textbook called Radio Engineering and he had a unique ability to make all these complex mathematical formulas that were developed for this complex industry —  he had a knack for making these look very simple so even a fellow like me could understand them. And, during this course he arranged for us to visit some of the industries in this area. I remember visiting Charlie Litton’s laboratory in Redwood City in the spring of 1934. We visited, I think, Itel McCullough, Heintz and Kaufman, and we came up to San Francisco where a young man named Philo Farnsworth was working on the development of an electronic camera for television. I was intrigued by the fact that these young people were able to go out and do these things on their own and to a very large degree without very much venture capital. Philo Farnsworth was an exception because the thing that he was working on required a long period of development which had to be financed. But Charlie Litton, the Heintz and Kaufman people, and these other organizations were largely doing this on a do-it-yourself basis and developing their own resources as they went along.”

 

Packard tells how, during World War II, when the center of gravity of the electronics industry moved to the East coast. “Fred Terman went back to the radio research laboratory at Harvard and all of the concentration of electronics then was Chicago and eastward and in fact some of us who remained out here got together to organize what we called the West Coast Electronics Manufacturers Association. The original purpose was to go back and convince some of the people in Washington that they ought to give us some business out here on the West coast. I don’t know that we were terribly successful, but we did achieve some success.”

 

Packard says that the war period didn’t involve a great deal of innovation, “because everything was dictated from the government.”

 

He says “Many of us were worried about what was going to happen after World War II with the center of electronics and industry moving out to the East coast, but fortunately Fred Terman decided to come back to Stanford. When he came back, he brought a group of young people who had been working with him at the radio research laboratory, and he endeavored to build up a very strong center of electronics research and development and a center of electronics education. One of the things which made this possible was the involvement of the Office of Naval Research. “

 

Packard says the ONR was impressed with the contribution technology made to the success of the war, and “They undertook a program to try to identify important areas of technology, centers where these areas of technology could be developed, and then would provide funding.

 

“Stanford,” Packard says, “was fortunate to be a recipient of the funding for some very important work that followed. It began with some continuing work in vacuum tubes – the traveling wave tube and the backward wave oscillator which some of you will recall – and later on, the beginnings of solid-state technology. From that base they built up a very strong activity here around the Stanford community. Similar things were happening in other parts of the country – there were some similar programs developed at MIT and Cal Tech – but I think the effort here at Stanford under Fred Terman’s leadership was probably the most significant and the most impressive in the field of electronics anywhere in the country. This also provided a basis for attracting a large number of very bright people to this program. In addition to providing an excellent technical education, Fred Terman was a great advocate of innovation. He gave a lot of encouragement to a number of young people who left his laboratory and went out to establish their own businesses.”

 

Packard says he thinks “…one of the most important things about this electronics industry of ours is that it has now reached the point where it is influencing and building a very wide range of activities around our economy. In the early days the vacuum tube and radio work built a whole new radio industry. Following that, there was the television industry. There was a good deal of talk about industrial electronics over the years and many of us tried to do some things in this area, but it never amounted to very much. And the whole business of computers, digital computers, came along in this period, but it was not really practical until you had the transistor. They built some computers with vacuum tubes which had some capability. But now this technology has reached the place where it has a tremendous amount of versatility. It’s useful not only in maintaining the basic communication and telecommunication activity that’s necessary – radio and television – but we now see a tremendous range of activities in industrial electronics, all kinds of things we can now do that couldn’t be done before. And with the data processing aspect of the business, we now have a field which is very much broader in base than anything we had in the past.

 

“The development of LSI is, of course, the thing that has really made this possible and made it move ahead at a very exciting pace, but there have been a number of other aspects of this field that I think we ought to keep in mind. It is always the basic breakthroughs like the transistor or the vacuum tube that provide opportunities for entrepreneurs in this area. As a matter of fact, I suspect that most of the breakthroughs have been based upon deviations from these particular areas.”

 

Packard says that,  as he looks back on successful products at HP, he sees many cases where “…what appears to be a rather insignificant development in technology provides the basis for a new product which is really distinctive. I recall two or three cases that might be cited as examples. We were involved in microwave work in the early 1950s and we were working on instrumentation to make measurements in coaxial transmission lines. One of the professors – I think it was Dr. Spangenberg over at Stanford, — came up with the idea that mathematically a transmission line, instead of being an outer cylinder with a conductor, could be a pair of parallel planes in the center conductor, and that made it possible to have access to the center conductor of measuring devices and to have a different geometrical configuration with which to work. From that very simple idea we developed a series of standing wave devices and a microwave oscillator which went on the market in the early 1950s, and we just discontinued it this year. I think this is a good example of how a very little unique idea in technology can provide the basis for a very important contribution in new products.”

 

Packard says “you have a real advantage if you can find something where you can get a little step ahead of the other fellow and not just get on a me too basis.” He gives an example:

 

“ In the late 1940s we commissioned a couple of young fellows at Stanford to try to develop some new circuitry to make counters for radioactivity. Here the thought was that if we could make a counter that would respond to radioactivity in better ways it would provide a basis for us to get into the nuclear instrument business. Well, these fellows came up with a very good technique of counting pulses and as we looked at it, we finally concluded that here was a way to make a frequency measurement device with which we could actually count the number of cycles up to a range of 10 megacycles and we then put on the market the first high-frequency counter which was immensely successful. I think this is an important lesson in this field.

 

“When we put that first high-frequency electric counter on the market, it provided such an improved capability that the fact that it wasn’t very reliable was not a tremendous handicap. We did have a terrible problem keeping these devices running. We had to send people all over the country, and in those days we weren’t quite as sophisticated as we’ve become. We didn’t always have the development completely done before we put something on the market. I’m sure none of you fellows ever make that mistake these days. But this capability was so unique and so important that people would put up with a device that wasn’t always that reliable.

 

“Some of you may recall that when I was in Washington [as Deputy Secretary of Defense, 1969-1972], I spent a good deal of time trying to find ways to do a better job of development and procurement of new weapons systems….One of the conclusions I came to was that they were trying to put things into production before they were completely developed. I went down and looked at one project Lockheed was doing which the Navy was supervising, and I concluded there was no way they could meet the schedule, so I told the Navy to go back and work out a schedule to stretch out this development time. Well, the follows came back in a briefing in a typical manner and they started telling me about how important it was to get this thing done on time. I finally had to stop the whole damn thing and say, ‘We didn’t come here to decide whether we’re going to do this, we came here to decide how we’re going to do it.’ And so they did actually delay this program for a whole year and it came out very well; it would have been impossible otherwise. That optimism seems to me to be built into a lot of these programs.”

 

Packard says he wants to comment about the “overall situation” in the electronics industry. He says he noted that in the [printed] program for the meeting it was indicated that  technology and venture capital are the two magic ingredients of a successful business, and he suggests that “you have left out one of the most important – management. Many firms start out with excellent technology, with all the money they need, but they fail because they have been unable to develop the necessary things to complete the program — the manufacturing capability, the marketing capability, the ability to build quality into their product and, above all, the ability to attract and motivate their people….I think if you look at any successful business, money and technology are two important elements, but so are the management ability, the understanding of the problem and its larger aspects.”

 

“One of the deans of venture capital of the 1950s is General George Doriot. I suppose you fellows will look at his record and say he wasn’t all that successful and he certainly didn’t bat a thousand by any means. But he did have some interesting ideas about how venture capital should deal with entrepreneurship. One comment he made was, ‘We’re not just finances, we’re really doctors of child health and we have to treat our companies as children.’ He also pointed out that early success was very dangerous because it’s likely to make the entrepreneur go out and buy a 12-cylinder Cadillac and go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter. I think there’s something to this, that the real entrepreneur and his contributions are something that his whole life is involved in and although money may be a motivation – it is a motivation – the real contributions come from those people who are dedicated.

 

Commenting on the “current situation” Packard says that he sees “this industry as having built up from a rather small base to an area of very wide involvement. The industry has been dependent on some very basic technology: the Poulsen arc which I cited was in the early days the basic technology that provided a foundation on which the early radio business was built; then the vacuum tube; and now the transistor.

 

“But what’s happened is that this base has now broadened so that we don’t have a single industry, a single area of the economy to deal with We have a tremendous range of opportunity. The transistor has been known about since 1948, the integrated circuit since about 1958; so both of these devices have been with us for 20 or 30 years. I think despite that, and I’m sure you people all recognize this, there are still a great many very interesting areas of development that are not absolutely fundamentally new ideas, but they provide an expansion of this whole technology.

 

“As I look at the field today, I think the opportunities for the electronic industry to continue without a breakthrough into an entirely new kind of technology are certainly going to be very exciting for at least the next 20 years. I think we have enough to work on for that time although it’s a little risky to make these projections and it’s also risky to say that you won’t find some completely new technology to replace the transistor and the integrated circuit. I don’t know of anybody who sees that unless maybe the genetic engineering people are going to help us out and find some way to do something different in that area. But I think we do have a continuing area of challenge and excitement and I would even put it this way: I’ve been in this business for over 40 years and I think the opportunities today are just as good as at any time that I was involved over these past four decades. I just wish I was young enough to start all over again, but I’m too tired to do that.”

 

“There is one thing that I am somewhat concerned about: that is the question of whether we are supporting a sufficient amount of basic research and development to keep this industry going. A good deal of the basic research and development on which all of us have built our businesses came from the Bell Telephone Laboratories. And, incidentally, I think the agreement on this antitrust suit is all right. I’m not sure the telecommunications industry is going to be better off for that, but at least it will preserve the Bell Laboratories as an important source of technology for us. Unfortunately, most of us who have been small companies have not had the ability or the resources to do very much in the way of fundamental research and development.

 

But I think there’s a growing concern about the need to do more of this and one way to do it, of course, is to develop more support for research and development at universities which is being done. Our company is looking for ways in which we can support basic research and universities around the country. For example, we’re supporting some increased activity at the University of California. I would encourage both you people who are involved in your individual businesses and you people who are involved in the venture capital business that this is a good place to put a little seed money to make sure we have a continuing basis of fundamental technology on which to build our future.”

 

Commenting on the Japanese situation Packard says he thinks “…there is going to be some real competition from the Japanese….the Japanese came into this industry and were able to establish a position in transistors, radios, and phonograph equipment and things like that, partly because they had lower manufacturing costs and were able to move in and achieve the market in that sense. Since that time, they have begun to make some inroads into some areas where we had a rather distinctive position, and I think they will be very serious competition in the future. They have a real dedication to hard work and they’re graduating more engineers in Japan now than we are graduating here in the United States. I think we’ll get a payoff of we do indeed increase our support to the technical education of research and development programs at our universities that will also serve to increase the number of highly educated young people we have coming to our ranks in the future. There really is a double payoff in the support of universities for all of us.

 

“The Japanese also intend to have a little longer term view, they have a more cooperative relationship with their government and they’re not motivated by having to show a profit quarter by quarter. I know it’s difficult to give you advice on that because I’ve said many times over that it’s just as easy to make a profit today as it is to make a profit tomorrow. I’ve seen many cases of firms who keep working on things and they think they’re going to get their yields up or get their production better next year, but manana never comes. There is a very difficult balance here in keeping a discipline to be profitable in the short term and at the same time not jeopardize your opportunity by failing to do some of the things that need to be done for the long term.

 

“I hope you people in the venture capital side of the business and the people in the operating side of the business will try to work together to find a better balance in supporting the long term performance of these various companies and not put too much emphasis on quarter-to-quarter performance. I know my words are not going to have very much effect on what you do in this regard, but I’m going to pass them onto you anyway.”

 

I think I’ll conclude the remarks with that. I think there’s a lot of life in this industry that’s going to go on for a long time and I have been asked to respond to a few questions. I’ll take the remaining minute or two to do that. It’s been good fun to be with you. I’ve rambled along, but I hope some of the things I’ve said will be of interest to you and it’s been a great pleasure to be with you this morning. Thank you very much.”

 

5/12/82, Note from Mary Anne Easley to Margaret Paull attaching several pages of handwritten notes made by Packard for his speech

1/10-14/82, Copy of the printed program for the conference

 

10/30/81, Copy of a letter to Packard from Samuel B. Jones, President of  the Financial Analysts Federation, inviting him to be the keynote speaker at their Technology Conference on January 11, 1982. He attaches a brief description of the program.

111/11/81, Letter to Packard from Phillip A. Lamoreaux, of the F.A. F. and program chairman, discussing arrangements for the conference

11/27/81 Letter to Packard from David A. Duncan, Phillip A. Lamoreaux and Clifford H. Higgerson, all of  F. A. F., giving details about the conference

12/16/81, Letter to Packard from Harry A. Hansen of the F. A. F. asking permission to record his talk

12/23/81, Copy of a Speaker Registration and Release for Recording form signed by Packard

1/14/82, Letter to Packard from Richard A. Holman, publisher of The Wall Street Transcript, asking for a copy of Packard’s comments

1/19/82, Letter to Packard from Ronald L. Nieddziela of the Wisconsin Investment Board, asking for a copy of his address

1/21/82, Letter to Packard from Malcolm Clissold asking for a copy of Packard’s address

1/27/82, Letter to Packard from Harry A. Hansen of the F. A.. F. thanking him for appearing as Keynote Speaker at their conference

2/12/82, Letter to Margaret Paull from Phillip A. Lamoreaux, saying that a tape of Packard’s speech is on the way . He also comments that paid attendance at the conference was over 550 – in excess of the 300 they expected.

 

 

Box 4, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

September 13, 1982, Electronics: From a Great Past to a Great Future, Speech on receiving the John Fritz Award from the Founders Society, Anaheim, CA

 

9/13/82, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is “greatly” honored to receive the John Fritz Award and to have the honor and pleasure to be at the Wescon/82 Electronics Exhibition and convention.

 

“What pleases me most,” he says, “is to have the opportunity to walk through the exhibits and look over the technical program and feel again, as I have many times over the last forty years, the high enthusiasm and unlimited optimism of the young men and women in this great electronics industry.”

 

Packard tells of his attendance at his first electronics show in 1940. “It was sponsored by the IRE  [International Radio Engineers] in those days, and the entire exhibit was held in the Commodore Hotel ballroom in New York City. I took three of the first Hewlett-Packard instruments with me on the train. It took two full days and three nights to get there in those days. Our exhibit consisted of a single table about 4 feet by 8 feet. I spent the entire week demonstrating our new products to potential customers and looking over the competition….”

 

Packard says he attended every national electronics exhibit held over the next twenty-eight years. He adds that he might still being doing so, but upon returning the HP in 1972, after three years with the government, he says he has “not been able to catch up with the technology or the market development since that time.

 

“As I look back over the years I have been associated with this great industry, I see several very important characteristics that make this industry unique among all of the industries in our economy.”

 

One characteristic he sees is “…the continuing development of new technology….At the beginning of this century, the technology built around the spark gap and Poulsen Arc created wireless telegraphy and telephony. Then came technology built around the vacuum tube which created the modern telephone system, radio broadcasting, talking pictures, television and radar – in fact, everything encompassed by the word electronics before about 1960. And then followed solid-state technology, which has expanded electronics into every aspect of our economy – indeed into nearly every aspect of our entire society.”

 

Packard sees another “dynamic characteristic” of the U.S. electronics industry – “its unusual dedication to innovation.” He says “There is a sort of naive enthusiasm about the people in this industry. Nothing is impossible. I remember beginning 40 years ago, how hard we worked every year to have some exciting new products ready for the next national convention and show. When we arrived to show our new instruments, we found that our competitors had been working hard, too. We sometimes found we were a little ahead, sometimes a little behind; whichever, we left the show resolved to go back to our shop and show those so and so’s how to do it next year.”

 

“High technology and enthusiastic innovation. Those are hallmarks of our industry, and I want to spend a little time today talking about technology and innovation in our electronics industry.

 

Packard tells how it took over ten years for the vacuum tube to become a practical device after Lee DeForest invented it in 1908. “…by the 1920s vacuum tubes were widely used in telephone equipment, and radio broadcasting was growing rapidly. For the next three decades all electronic technology was centered on the vacuum tube. There were many new kinds of circuitry. The negative feedback principle became widely used in the 1930s. The first Hewlett-Packard instruments were innovative applications of negative feedback.

 

“It became recognized that the high-frequency limit of vacuum tubes was caused by the transit time of electrons between the cathodes, grid and plate. Then the brilliant innovation of Russ Varian put the transit time effects to work and the Klystron became the first of a new family of tubes that made microwave electronics possible.”

 

“During World War II electronics grew by leaps and bounds. Radar and the proximity fuse greatly expanded the capability of our military forces. Radio countermeasures were developed, and these electronic developments played a decisive role in the Allied victory over Germany and Japan. In Great Britain basic contributions to the development of radar were made. Germany and Japan developed good radar and electronic communication equipment as well.

 

“After the war an important series of events took place which determined that the leadership role of the United States in electronics would continue right up to the present time.”

 

Packard says that several “influential people” in Washing D. C. were impressed with the degree of cooperation between industry, universities and the government that was shown during World War II. “The Office of Naval Research was chartered to provide continuing Federal support for electronics as well as in other fields at several major universities, including Stanford. Dr. Frederick Terman, who became Dean of Engineering at Stanford, realized that cooperation with industry would also be an important element for successful electronic research and development. This became the foundation on which the amazing growth of electronics in Silicon Valley was built. There were a number of similar developments around other universities in other parts of the country, although none was as successful or as well-known as the Stanford-Silicon Valley connection.”

 

“As this teamwork relationship was being developed, the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories. This occurred in 1948, and again, as in the case of the vacuum tube, it required about ten years for the transistor to be developed to the point it would replace the vacuum tube as the active element in electronic equipment.

 

“By 1960 transistors began to replace vacuum tubes in most electronic equipment, and by 1970 solid-state technology had progressed to the era of integrated circuits, which are the centerpiece of electronic technology today.

 

‘From the very beginning of electronics in 1920, the Bell Telephone Laboratories has been by far the single most important contributor to the development of our industry. Reliable repeaters were needed for long telephone lines, and so reliable vacuum tubes were developed. Stable repeaters were needed and that requirement was the genesis of negative feedback.

 

“Co-axial cable and waveguide could transmit information at a high rate, and so the Bell Laboratories were in the forefront of microwave research and development. As a result of this capability in microwave electronics, the telephone company produced more than half of all United States radar equipment during World War II.

 

“As the use of telephones expanded, high-speed switching became a necessity, and this need catalyzed the development of the transistor. These are but a few of the important contributions made by the Bell Labs to electronics.

 

“I make note of these very major contributions of the Bell Labs not simply to recognize the great help they have given us, but to point out that the Bell Labs has provided a very important model of efficient research and development carried out over a long period of time. Other laboratories have had brilliant scientists, but few have had an environment with the close coupling to operating requirements that has been provided by the operating companies of the Bell System, and the close cooperation with equipment design and manufacture that Western Electric has provided. The Bell System has been a unique organization which has made a tremendous contribution to the development of our electronics industry.”

 

“As I look back over the years I have been involved with electronics, there is one thing which stands out above all else. The electronic industry has provided a unique opportunity for individual enterprise. Many of the most important inventions have been made by individuals, sometimes working alone, sometimes sponsored by a university or an industrial company.”

 

“There is hardly any other industry that has provided as great an opportunity for individual enterprise over such a long period of time. The automobile industry was one of individual enterprise in its earlier years – Ford, Olds, yes, even Packard – but no more. Other high-technology industries such as chemicals and drugs have not had as much opportunity for individual enterprise. Fortunately, the opportunity for an individual to be successful in electronics is just as great today as it was forty-three years ago when Bill Hewlett and I started out on our own.”

 

Packard sees the solid state technology as adequate to support at least twenty more years of innovative development. However, he adds that “…we do need a continuing influx of new basic knowledge about materials, alloys, surface effects and other things which will make it possible to expand and improve what we are already doing

 

“There is a great deal of concern about the state of research in the United States. None of the problems, which threaten the quality and quantity of basic research in the United States, has reached point of no return – but they could easily reach a state of real disaster unless something is done, and done soon.

 

“The first step is for all of us in industry to recognize that the future of our industry is inseparably dependent on maintaining the quality and quantity of basic research in the United States. To do this we must develop a much closer partnership between our industry, our universities and our large Federal research laboratories.

 

“During World War II, it was the partnership between our industry, universities and our Federal research laboratories that gave such great impetus to electronics. We did it before and we can do it again.”

 

Packard says many people in the electronics industry do recognize the need and he sees growing involvement of industry with universities and Federal laboratories. “…the need is not as much for money as it is for help on the political front. Congress and indeed some of the sponsoring agencies have a very confused idea about how a high-quality research laboratory should be organized and managed. I would encourage everyone in our industry to lean more about this very important research and development asset we have. To the extent we can help the federal laboratories do a better job, we will in the long run be helping ourselves.”

 

Packard turns to the matter of competition from the Japanese. “We must take the Japanese seriously,” he says. “They are bright, they work hard, and they will be serious competition in the future.

 

“There is nothing wrong with competition. This has always been a very competitive industry. It is mostly up to us to stay ahead, but I think we need a little help from the Federal Government.

 

“There are some things only our Federal Government can do to help our industry compete. First, they can put more pressure on the Japanese to reduce non-tariff trade barriers. Second, only the Federal Government can force a more realistic exchange ratio between the dollar and the yen, which has been a serious problem for every industry trading with Japan.

 

“The Japanese have an important advantage in the vigor and quality of their educational system. The United States educational system has seriously deteriorated in the last two decades. To bring the United States schools, colleges and universities back to a standard of excellence that is necessary to assure our technical leadership for the future, is a job for all of us. Money is needed, but also more leadership is needed. There are literally hundreds of ways people in our industry can help to bring our schools back up to the standards they had in years past.

 

“I would suggest that every individual in this audience can play at least a small part in the improvement of this country’s educational system, and I encourage each of you to do so.

 

“Finally, our industry needs a new commitment to excellence. We should not worry so much about how much money we can make next month. Instead, we should concentrate on how we an do a better job next month and every month thereafter – a better new product, better quality in all of our products, improved productivity. If we strive for excellence in everything we do over the long term, we won’t have to worry about making a profit and we won’t have to worry about staying ahead of the Japanese.

 

“It has been a great  experience to have been involved in the electronics field over these past forty-three years. The most satisfying thing about it all is that the opportunities for a young person looking forward to a future in electronics are just as attractive, perhaps even more so today, than they were for Bill Hewlett and me in 1939.”

 

9/13/82, Printed booklet titled John Fritz Medal, and containing a biography of David Packard

9/13/82, Typewritten pages titled History of the John Fritz Medal, and a list of past medal recipients

 

1/5/82,Letter to Packard from Betty J. Stillman of IEEE, saying they were sorry to hear he cannot make the May 23^rd date, and asking that he suggest an alternate

1/13/82, Internal HP memo form Bud Eldon to Margaret Paull, saying the Executive Committee of Wescon would be honored to present the Award to Packard at their Awards Luncheon on September 13, 1982, and asking if Packard would be willing to give the keynote address.

1/25/82, Letter to Packard from W. Q. Nicholson, of the Wescon show, giving details of  the award luncheon

3/3/82, Letter to Packard from Alexander D. Korwek, Secretary of the Board of Award, saying they have not received the requested biography

3/5/82, Copy of a letter to John A. Zecca, Board of Award, from Margaret Paull, sending a biography and photograph

3/25/82, Letter to Packard  from Donald Christiansen, congratulating him on being selected to receive the John Fritz Award

9/6/82, Letter to Packard from Donald Rubendall of SFE Technologies, and saying that he hadn’t seen Packard since their trip to Israel, and inviting him to visit their plant during his visit to Los Angeles area for the John Fritz Award. A pencilled note, probably made by Margaret Paull, says “Rubendall called and told Packard’s schedule was “tight.”

June 1982, Copy of magazine Preview WESCON 1982, containing an article saying Packard will address the show luncheon as keynote speaker

 

 

Box 4, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

September 15, 1982, Everett Area Chamber of Commerce, Everett, WA

 

Aided and abetted by Bill Kay, The HP GM of the Lake Stevens Division, The Everett Chamber of Commerce invited Packard to speak to their  annual fall meeting. Although correspondence mentions the possibility of recording his remarks, no transcription is available. The following notes are taken from some 3×5’ cards Packard wrote to outline ideas for his comments, and we have some quotations from a newspaper article describing Packard’s remarks.

 

9/15/82, 3×5’ outline notes made by Packard for his address.

 

“Pleased to be here. Not going to talk about the HP controversy – Opponents think it is a very attractive place to live

We want to build a plant here because we too think it is a very attractive area for our people to live. We both want it maintained as an attractive area to live in the future. Oregon example

 

“ History of electronics and U.S. leadership in innovation of electronics,  and some projections for future.

 

“Opportunity – 2 more decades with VLSI.

 

“HP role in electronics

 

“Problems

Level of R&D

Quality of education

Japanese competition – Smart – work hard, good educational system

The close and effective relationship between U. S. Federal Government, area universities and industry began to deteriorate in the 1960s.

Anti-Viet Nam and established environmental regulations, social policy regulations

 

“I recognized that legislation and regulation were done without knowledge of bad effects – economic – more money for less quality in education

 

“Business Round Table, California Round Table

1. To encourage chief executive officers to look beyond our boundaries
2. To establish higher business standards and self discipline
3. To contribute positively to shape public policy

 

 

 

“Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group

Increase public understanding of industry

Recommend and support public policies to keep Santa Clara attractive

Educate industry leaders on local public policies

Loan executive talent

 

 

“I understand you are already working on improving relationships between business, education, labor and government – state and county basis.

 

“I am very confident about future

“People are concerned about problems

“Our industry has made a new commitment to excellence.

“About the future of electronics

We need some help and at least a better understanding from government.

“We need a continuing commitment to excellence

 

“I want HP to become a good citizen of your community. I can assure you every one of our employees will work very hard to prove to you that we are a good citizen.

 

9/16/82, Clipping from the Everett [?] Herald covering Packard’s remarks. These are the quotes and some of their comments they included:

 

The article states that Packard advocated an approach to problem solving that would warm a progressive Democrat’s heart.

 

The article says Packard stated that “business should work closely with government and universities to develop a cooperative relationship and better understanding on a broad array of issues.”

 

He said “the electronics industry grew up under a cooperative relationship with government and universities. But by the 1960s, business-government relations had deteriorated to an adversary mode.” He and his peers addressed that problem by creating the Business Roundtable, an organization of chief executive officers from giant U.S. corporations that became actively involved in the legislative process.

 

“Its important,” Packard said “for business involvement in political issues to start at the top of the company, in part so that chief executive officers can broaden their outlook.

 

“Business people,” the article continues to quote Packard, “do have a responsibility to the community beyond making a profit for their shareholders. Business involvement is needed at the local, state and national levels.”

 

Companies in California set up a California roundtable along the lines of its national counterpart and Packard was active in forming county organizations to fulfill a similar role, the article said.

 

On the new plant in Lake Stevens the article quotes Packard as saying “in the long run [local] people will be glad we decided to come up here”

 

9/15/82, Printed invitation to the 1982 Annual Meeting and Recognition Dinner of the Everett Area Chamber of Commerce

2/4/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay, General Manager of HP’s Lake Stevens plant, saying the Everett Chamber of Commerce is “enthusiastic” about the possibility of having Packard coming to speak to them

3/5/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay saying they are delighted Packard will speak to the C. of C. there in Everett

6/7/82, Letter to Packard from Paul Seely, General Manager of the Everett Chamber of Commerce, discussing a date for the annual meeting that is satisfactory to all parties

6/24/82, Letter to Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, talking about dates

8/25/82, Note from Margaret Paull to Packard saying Bill Kay had called with some suggestions on ideas for his speech

8/27/82, Letter to Packard from Paul Seely, C. of C. General Manager, discussing arrangements for the dinner, and adding that “Hewlett-Packard has given the business community a much needed boost in morale and your personal visit underscores our visions of a much brighter future.” He encloses some printed  information sheets and pamphlets about Everett and the Chamber.

8/31/82, Letter to Packard from Robert Humphrey, newspaper columnist in Everett, enclosing some historical data on the Everett area

9/7/82, Memo from Bob Kirkwood, HP Manager of Government Relations, with a suggested outline of ideas for Packard’s speech

9/24/82, Letter to Packard from Bill Kay, thanking him for coming to

Everett and speaking to the C. of C. meeting.

Undated, Handwritten note to Packard from Dennis Coleman, an HP employee in Lake Stevens, saying it is an “honor and a great benefit to have you come and speak to the community.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

October 14. 1982, 1982 Sylvanus Thayer Award, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY

 

10/14/82, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks upon receiving the Sylvanus Thayer Award

 

Packard says, “…it is indeed flattering to be associated with Sylvanus Thayer, who was an engineer and who has been recognized as the ‘Father of Technology in the United States.’

 

“It is also most appropriate that the U.S. Military Academy, in memorializing Thayer, has recognized the close and important relationship between technology, engineering and military affairs. “

Packard reviews some of the history of the relationship between technology, engineering and military affairs – going back to the “Bronze Age.” He says “The ability to smelt ore to obtain copper and tin, and then to alloy the two to make bronze, affected many aspects of the civilization of that period. Nowhere was the effect more important than on military capability. Bronze made it possible to construct better offensive weapons, more effective body armor, and probably led to the development of the chariot.”

 

“Bronze made possible better spears and swords – the firepower of that era. It also made possible a very fundamental defense – body armor. And military mobility received a great boost with the invention of the chariot, which is thought to have been used in Mesopotamia as early as 3000

B. C., probably about the middle of the “Bronze Age.”

 

“And Packard tells of the contribution of engineering to the art of military capability: stone walls, battering rams, scaling devices, catapults.”

 

“When the “Bronze Age” gave way to the “Iron Age” about 3000 years ago, another quantum leap in military capability became possible. Then came the invention of gun powder and its military use, beginning about the 14^th century, and another new family of military weapons.”

 

It takes years to realize all the military benefits from a major technological breakthrough, and those breakthroughs don’t come very often. One of the most important in recent times as the invention of the internal combustion engine, because from that technology have come the truck, the jeep, the tank, and the aeroplane.  Aeroplanes were first used extensively during World War I, with jets entering the picture at the end of World War II.”

 

Packard says he has been talking about how the military has benefited from technology. “The opposite also occurs,” he says, “where military requirements serve to catalyze technological developments.

 

“One of the most interesting cases I learned from Dr. Hans Merk, who was undersecretary of the Air force at the time he did this research “ And he tells the story of how, in the 18^th century,  the British government offered a prize of 20,000 pounds for anyone who developed a way for sailors to determine longitude. John Harrison, a British craftsman, Packard relates, spent over 30 years developing an accurate chronometer that finally won him the prize.

 

Packard calls World war II the “epitome” of technology’s contribution to the military. “The era saw the development of radar, the proximity fuse, sonar, and finally the atom bomb. And in the 37 years since the war ended, all of the weapons based on the technology of that time continue to be improved.”

 

“Up until about ten years ago, the improvements in military weaponry did not include much new technology beyond that available at the end of the war, except solid state electronics technology which, though invented in 1948, began to be deployed in weapons of the 1960s. there were vast improvements in jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, and, of course, the whole development of space. Rockets, however, were developed by the Germans in the Second World War, and our space effort required great technical improvement but evolved few new basic scientific principles.

 

“Where do we stand today,” Packard asks, “in this relationship between engineering, technology, and military capability? I believe we are in the early stages of the application of a new technology that could bring about a watershed improvement in military capability. That technology is digital data processing. This technology came into existence without any particular pressure of military requirements. The first digital computers had limited military use, but shortly after they appeared, many important military applications became evident and are now already used.

 

“It is, however, the combination of solid state electronics and the digital computer which has given us what will be a new landmark breakthrough in military capability, perhaps comparable in importance to many of the giant steps of the past. We can now make smart weapons that have more than homing capability. They can now also have on board the capability to make complex decisions about what they are expected to do. The use of remotely piloted vehicles now becomes much more effective. As more computer capability is added to offensive weapons, electronic countermeasures will have to keep pace. By combining solid state electronics with digital data handling technology, we can build into the weapons of the future an entirely new combination of firepower, mobility, and deception.”

 

Packard says it will be some ten to twenty years for this new digital technology to be translated into better weapons. “It will be an exciting opportunity,” he says, “for all of you who are now attending this Academy, for this new military-technological revolution will be in full force as you enter your professional careers in the next few years.

 

Packard offers a suggestion to the members of his audience: “Even though you are not an engineer or a scientist, you must learn enough about how it works. You cannot be an expert in technology without a large investment of time. Some of you may become experts, but others will have different major responsibilities. A working understanding will help immeasurably for those of you who will work with the professional scientists and engineers of the future.

 

“Also, remember that military equipment alone is not sufficient to assure victory, whether in a battle or a war. Strategy and tactics are always important, often decisive. These must be tailored to the new weapons, not the old. Training is essential and will become increasingly important as weapons become more complex. Other intangibles are important, too. Between two equally matched and equipped forces, often the battle is won by the side with the best morale. Leadership and spirit prevail, and all of you here at West Point recognize that fact.

 

“Again, let me say I am greatly honored to receive this Award. And while I have had an interesting and very satisfying career, I envy you who are just starting. I am sure the opportunities to forge strong and continu9ng links between technology and m8litary capability will be even greater for all of you in the future than they have been for any of the great people who have plowed this important field since the dawn of history.

 

“Thank you.”

 

10/14/82, Printed program of the Award ceremony, containing a biography of Packard

10/14/82, Typewritten sheet containing criteria for the Thayer Award

10/14/82, Typewritten sheets listing Thayer Award Guests

3/5/82, Letter to Packard from George F. Dixon, Jr., President Association of Graduates, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Mr. Dixon informs Packard that he has been selected as the 1982 recipient of the Sylvanus Thayer Award. He lists past recipients and hopes Packard will agree to accept the award.

4/6/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to George F. Dixon, Jr. saying that he has discussed the matter with a James Q. Brett who will report to Mr. Dixon “in due course.”

4/30/82, Letter to Packard from George Dixon confirming their phone conversation of April 29 settling on October 14 as the date for the presentation of the award

6/18/82, Letter to Packard from General Winfield Scott (Retired), congratulating him on being selected to receive the Thayer Award, and he adds that it has been one of his objectives for some time to see this Award presented to Packard.

9/2/82, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary) to Col. Robert J. Lamb, (Ret.), enclosing a biography and a list of people to invite

9/13/82, Small typewritten note, no doubt from Margaret Paull to Packard, which says “I was talking to Dean & Virginia Rusk over the weekend…Dean sends you congratulations on the Sylvanus Thayer Award…says it’s a very prestigious honor!”

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Edward W. Carter congratulating him on the honor

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from General A. C. Wedemeyer (Ret.) congratulating him on the award

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Jack Guy, President Standard Oil Company of California offering congratulations

9/14/82, Letter to Packard from Richard G. Capen, Jr. of Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. saying they are sorry they cannot be at the award ceremony

9/15/82, Letter from Melvin R. Laird saying he is sorry to have to miss the award ceremony

9/15/82, Letter to Packard from Otto N. Miller offering congratulations

9/16/82, Letter to Packard from Charles E. Odegaard, President Emeritus, University of Washington, offering congratulations. He adds that “you will be interested to know that the presence of the Hewlett-Packard plant in Boise, Idaho has awakened some of the conservative-type politicians and state figures in Idaho to the desirability of improving support for education and the development of a more skilled population.”

9/16/82, Letter to Packard from Kenneth E. Hill, offering congratulations and regrets

9/17/82, Letter to Packard from Malcolm C. Todd M. D., sending regrets

9/22/82, Letter to Packard from Lauro F. Cavazos, Ph D., President Texas Tech University, sending congratulations and regrets

9/22/82, Letter to Packard from Jack R. Wheatley, offering congratulations

9/24/82, Letter to Packard from Steve Bechtel, sending congratulations and regrets

9/27/82, Handwritten letter to Packard from Phil Montgomery, sending congratulations and regrets

9/29/82, Letter to Packard from Lee L. Morgan, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Tractor Co., offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from James Q. Brett, Chairman of the Thayer Award Selection Committee saying they are delighted Packard was able to accept the nomination for the Award. He enclosed a biography of himself.

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from Joseph D. Matarazzo offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Handwritten letter to Packard from Leonard Heaton offering congratulations and regrets

10/4/82, Letter to Packard from Charlie Kitto, sending congratulations and regrets. He adds “We certainly enjoyed being with you and Lucille (sic) last week.”

10/5/82, Letter to Packard from Ernest Arbuckle, sending congratulations and regrets

10/5/82, Note to Packard from Rene C. McPherson sending congratulations and regrets

10/5/82, Letter to Packard from James R. Ambrose sending congratulations and regrets

10/6/82, Letter to Packard from Robert J. Lamb sending copies of remarks at the presentation ceremony of some previous Thayer Award recipients

10/6/82, Letter to Packard from Eberhard Rechtin, President, The Aerospace Corporation, sending congratulations and regrets

10/7/82, Letter to Packard from Samuel M. Armacost, President, Bank of

America, sending congratulations and regrets

10/8/82, Letter to Packard from Francis D. Moore M. D. se ding congratulations and regrets

10/11/82, Letter to Packard from Eugene M. Farber, M. D., Chairman of the Department of Dermatology, Stanford University, offering congratulations and regrets

10/12/82, Handwritten note from Morris M. Doyle, offering congratulations and regrets

10/13/82, Handwritten note to Packard from Gloria and Bob Brown sending congratulations and regrets

10/27/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to George F. Dixon, of the West Point Association of Graduates, saying “You once wrote me ‘your experience here on 14 October, at the true birthplace of our nation’s military education, will be one which you will always remember.’ “You were entirely right!,” Packard continues. “Mrs. Packard and I thoroughly enjoyed our visit. I was especially pleased to be in the company of the fine young cadets – those young men and women who will carry on the leadership of our country in the future.

 

“The sword arrived safely this morning and I will treasure it. Please express my sincere thanks to the Association of Graduates for selecting me for the Sylvanus Thayer Award.”

10/28/82, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lt. Gen. Willard W. Scott, Jr. thanking him for the “wonderful day” he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed.

11/29/82, Note to Packard from Justin Dart offering congratulations

12/6/82, Letter to Packard from Charles E. Odegaard, saying he was pleased to receive a copy of Packard’s remarks

12/15/82, Letter to Packard from Alexander M. Haig, Jr. adding his congratulations after seeing an article on the Award in the West Point Association of Graduates magazine

12/21/82, Letter to Packard from Myron DuBain, offering congratulations

 

9/11/80, copy of remarks made by a previous Award recipient, Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh

10/10/79, Copy of remarks by another Award recipient, Clare Booth Luce

March, 1982, Copy of an article titled The Dual Track Curriculum, by LTC William R. Calhoun Jr.

 

3/5/82, Copy of the biography submitted by Packard for the Award

 

 

Box 4, Folder 38 – General Speeches

 

November 8, 1982, Army Science Board, Presidio, San Francisco, CA

 

11/8/82, Outline of remarks, handwritten by Packard

 

“Little I can say to such a distinguished group.

 

“Status of science and technology in U.S.

“Federal Laboratories

“Technology transfer

 

“Concern about U.S. leadership in science and technology

 

“After World War II we had dominant position: electronics, aviation, rockets and space (Soviets), computers and data products.

 

“Europe and Japan began to catch up in 1960s.

 

“Changes  – late 1960s into 1970s

Education

Less emphasis on technology and move on humanities.

Equal opportunity – minorities, education, more graduates – in some ways quality suffered.

 

Military

Viet Nam syndrome, cut back in military spending, Mansfield amendment, more controls on federal R & D programs.

 

Social

More money on medical research, health and environment.

 

Energy

End of low cost energy

Much effort on alternate energy sources

Opposition to nuclear power

Ten fold increase in price of oil

 

“Where do we stand today?

 

Still leaders in science and technology in most field, electronics, computers, biological engineering, agriculture, aviation.

 

Rate of increases in R. & D  higher in Japan and some European countries – more patents, more engineering graduates etc.

 

The U.S. has lost some of its momentum in science and technology.

This is not all bad – e.g. high energy physics, nuclear energy, e.g. breeder reactor.

The U.S. must maintain a substantial lead!

 

“Military – Technology more important in future

Equipping the Army 1990-2000

Lasers, robotics, simulation, artificial intelligence, air defense, BMD, armor/anti-armor

All military services have made great progress in applying technology in last two decades.

 

1980s could be even more important; VLSI will add great capability, directed energy, space, etc.

 

The Army has a great challenge & a great opportunity.

 

Two things are required: Keeping ahead on our technological base – and having both the technology and the ingenuity to use it to advantage.

 

The real shortfall is the time it takes to get new technology weapons to the forces.

 

 

“Two things the Army can do to help maintain leadership in our technological base.

Make better use of the Army Laboratories

Develop better involvement with university research

 

“There have been many studies of DOD laboratories.

Personnel and salary policies do not attract, keep and motivate the best technical people

There are not enough centers of excellence in scientific discipline essential to the Army.

The laboratories are not as closely coupled to the Army command people as they should be,

Facilities and equipment are often out of date and unsuited to today’s latest technology.

“I would encourage the Army Science Board to address the Army Laboratories problems

“Much basic research comes from our university laboratories and they are the main source of our scientists and engineers. The Army could selectively support more R & D or universities and perhaps shift ROTC emphasis more into technical and engineering areas.

 

“Again, this is an area where the Army Science Board could help in the development and utilization of technology, not only for the Army but for our entire country. We must keep up technological base but we must get it to field faster.  30%/year

 

“I know you have a task force on improving the acquisition process. I spent time on this problem 1979-71 – Defense Systems Management College at Fort Belvoir.

 

“The procurement process is still too highly structured to enable new and innovative technology to be evaluated and brought into the force structure. I still believe the prototype procedure still has much to offer and I believe that more discretionary money for the Army laboratories and more Discretionary money for some of the commands to try out new ideas in the field might do a great deal to get advanced technology weapons into the field faster.

“Finally, a word about technology transfer. I believe we are overly worried about this problem and we could easily do ourselves more damage than the Soviets if we continue this over zealous posture.

 

“Most basic scientific knowledge is available on a world wide basis. The Soviet Academics do excellent scientific work. In fact, the idea for a new weapon that could become very important, and is now highly classified by us, came from a Soviet publication.

 

“Historically, communication between scientists has been very important in developing and confirming new ideas. In my experience most progress in the electronics field has come when several people in different places are working on a new idea and exchanging their views.

 

“There is no way we can stop this kind of exchange at the Soviet borders, or even at the borders of the U.S. without very tight security on every research and development activity, and this certainly would be deadening to progress.

 

“On the other hand, the Soviets are not very good at putting new ideas into production. For that reason they seek to buy turnkey plants, manpower processes, tooling – all of which can and should be controlled.

 

“There is really not much to be gained in controlling the sale of non-military end products. If U.S. companies are prohibited, European or Japanese have to be prohibited also, and even then if it is a commercial product dummy fronts are easily set up to obtain the device.

 

“The pipeline case is a good example of how not to do it. The U.S. lost a lot of jobs, U.S. business lost credibility in Europe and no damage was done to the Soviets.

 

I Believe the policies followed during the so-called ‘détente’ were much more sensible. If we put all of our efforts on staying ahead by  [     ?     ] our own technology, improving our ability to get new weapons to the forces we would be far ahead.”

 

9/30/82, Letter to Packard from Amoretta M. Hoeber, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, saying she is pleased Packard has agreed to speak to the Army Science Board, and discusses arrangements for the meeting. Enclosures list recent activities of the Board and Board membership.

Box 5, Folder 1 – General Speeches, includes correspondence relating to speeches

 

February 2, 1983, High Technology, High Stakes: An Agenda for the Eighties, Washington D. C.

 

This speech was presented at a conference entitled High Technology Industries: Public Policies for the 1980s. Packard refers to it as an appraisal of America’s high-technology industries and the competitive challenges they face.

 

2/2/83, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard says he is “gratified” to see the attention high technology has been receiving in a public policy debate. He says “It’s about time.”

 

“Its about time this country recognized the vital importance of its high technology industries.

 

“It’s about time we gave a serious appraisal of the competitive challenges faced by U.S. high technology.

 

“It’s about time we looked at public policies that affect this vital sector of our economy.”

 

And he adds the thought that he hopes people in Washington D. C, are listening.

 

Packard says his remarks will focus mostly on the electronics industry, although “…much of what I have to say will apply to all of what we call high-technology – industries characterized by rapid technical innovation and growth.

 

Packard adds his perspective on just how vital the high technology sector is to the American economy.

 

“If you were to make a graph for sales of U.S. electronic products, the curve would make a very dramatic upward swing over the past few decades:

 

$12 billion in 1960

$28 billion in 1970

$113 billion in 1981

 

“That gives electronics a compound rate of about 15 percent a year – definitely a growth industry. In fact, over the last decade, the growth rate for electronics was twice the rate of growth in our national GNP.”

 

“In the computer industry, technical advances have resulted in productivity increases of around 30 percent a year. That has meant lower prices and increased performance of computer equipment.”

 

“Electronics is currently the world’s ninth largest industry. It’s expected to be fourth largest by the end of this decade. In the year 2000, it will rank second in size only to energy.

 

“In an era where America’s older industries are facing growing competition from abroad, declining sales and growing unemployment, electronics is a real hopeful sector of our economy. Our electronics industry plays a vital role in America’s balance of trade, too. Last year, the industry produced a $10 billion balance of trade surplus for this country, if you exclude consumer electronics.”

 

“Electronics makes another key contribution to our nation.” he says. “That is the decisive element of superiority it adds to our  military capability. This is a strategic issue we must not overlook.

 

“So why is this conference being held?, “ he asks. “I believe the answer goes beyond a growing recognition of high technology’s importance. There is increasing concern that we as a country are slipping in our position as world leaders in high technology.

 

“I’m not happy to say it, but I share that view. There are a number of ways the trend manifests itself:

 

• A decline in patents issued for U.S. innovation,
• A decreasing share of world trade for the U.S. in key high technology areas,
• A total national expenditure on basic scientific research that has showed little real growth,
• A shortage of scientists and engineers, and
• An increasingly strained university and college system for the training of these people.

 

“These unfortunate trends exist in a wider context, and that is the increasing competition this country faces from abroad in electronics and other high technology sectors.

 

“Other countries have decided that electronics is a good industry for them to have, too. And they’re doing their best to grab a bigger piece of the action. So our world leadership in electronics is facing a mounting challenge. Japan, France, Great Britain, West Germany, Mexico, Brazil – all have targeted the electronics industry as the sector where they as a nation want to focus their efforts.”

 

Although believing that not all of these efforts will be successful, Packard sees some “disturbing signs.”

 

• “The U.S. has a trade deficit with Japan in consumer electronics that grew from $3.5 billion in 1980 to $6 billion last year.

 

• The Japanese have captured 70 percent of the worldwide market for 64K dynamic RAMS, an important building block of advanced electronic products. Right now they have a 60 percent share of the U.S. market for these devices.

 

• Japanese export growth in high technology has been greater than 20 percent annually, a greater growth rate than here in the U.S.”

 

“If we have learned any lesson from rising imports and declining employment in the auto or steel industries, it should be this: We cannot assume that this country does not face competition. We cannot assume that we will automatically retain our leadership position in high technology.

 

“We must act, and the time to act is now.”

 

Packard says he is not suggesting that the U.S. adopt “the kinds of direct governmental targeting that are being practiced abroad. What I am suggesting is that this country formulate a national response to the competition we face from abroad. That strategy should be consistent with our own free market system. We should be building on our strengths and buttressing our weak spots.”

 

Packard sees no simple answer to the problems the U.S. faces. “But we must not be discouraged by the complexity of the issues. Complex problems can be solved – ask any engineer who has designed an electronic device. The hardest thing to do is to define the problem and start tackling it. That task we are doing here today, and I hope we can maintain our forward momentum.”

 

Referring to a subject discussed earlier in the conference, International Trade and Capital Formation, Packard says he would like to add his thoughts on this issue.

“In international trade, I urge our continued support for open markets both here and abroad. We must resist the impulse to protect high technology from foreign imports. Import controls are counter-productive in the long run. They lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers and less efficient, weaker industries.”

 

“Let me add my name to the list of those urging our trading partners to remove all non-tariff barriers to high technology trade.”

 

Packard says he was pleased to see that the conference has also included a discussion of capital formation. Referring to the well known fact that he and Bill Hewlett started HP with a stake of just over $500, he says he is “not so sure we could get by with that sum if we were starting today. High technology industries are becoming increasingly more capital-intensive.

 

“The cost and availability of capital in this country can put U.S. firms at a real disadvantage compared to their competitors abroad. Several recent studies have shown that capital costs for American firms are higher than those of their international competitors.”

 

He mentions one study that stated that “capital costs were the greatest single factor that helped the Japanese in their recent incursion into the U.S. market.”

 

“The recent reduction in the capital gains tax has been helpful. I think we should go beyond this and reduce the capital gains tax to zero for new capital that is actually invested in our industry. This would include venture capital or new issues of stock by any company. This reduction in capital gains tax would apply only to investments which add to capital availability. Capital gains from shares of stock which are already publicly held should continue to be taxed at a  reasonable rate.

 

“We need to explore this proposal and all the issues of capital formation and growth-oriented tax policies. It would be a real tragedy if all this country’s innovative and entrepreneurial spirit went to waste just because money is expensive and hard to come by.”

 

Having mentioned entrepreneurial spirit, Packard says he wants to focus the rest of his remarks on “technological innovation and the people who make it happen.”

 

Packard repeats his earlier statement to the effect that “our national strategy to maintain U.S. competitiveness in high technology should build on our strengths as a nation. The area of technical creativity is this country’s greatest strength.

 

“America’s technological edge dates from World War II, when the Federal government gave a real boost to scientific research. Governmental support for basic science began right after World War II and continued into the 1950s, when the Office of Naval Research spearheaded major efforts in some of our strong research universities.

 

“In addition, in the field of electronics, this country benefited from post-war prohibitions on electronics research in Japan and Germany. We had, so to speak, a free hand in the industry for more than a decade.

 

“Since the beginning of the 1960s, that technological lead has been gradually whittled away. While we still spend a greater percentage of our GNP on research and development than any other country R&D funding is growing faster abroad than it is here. Only industrial spending on R&D has shown any real growth in the past decade. There has been little, if any, real growth in the amount spent on basic research by our government or universities. The sole exception would be research in high energy physics, and this has yet to produce anything useful for our economy.

 

“We’re not making the most efficient use of our federal research funding, either. Our federal government spent $44 billion on R&D last year. But little of that money went for research in areas that might lead to new, commercial technologies.

 

“This year, three-fourths of federal R&D funding will be in defense and aerospace. Neither of these areas has produced as much commercial fallout as is often suggested by the departments managing these programs.

 

“In fact when defense-related funding is subtracted from total U.S. R&D spending, this country actually spends a smaller percentage of its GNP on research than Japan or West Germany.”

 

And we could get more for our money on what the government does spend on research, Packard contends. “We could do a more effective job of transferring technologies from our federal research laboratories to the commercial sector. That would cost us little or nothing.

 

“Our more than 700 federal research laboratories  could be made more effective. These labs often have poorly defined research goals. In some cases their goals change directions too frequently. For others, their research goals may have needed revision long ago. In any case, our labs could benefit from sound management principles – well-defined goals, strategic plans to accomplish those goals, and regular re-evaluation of results.

 

“When Congress reviews the activities of our federal labs, it is on these broad areas it should focus. Too often, Congressional oversight means a line-by-line review of each item on a lab’s budget – an exercise that is far more time-consuming than either Congress or lab staff can afford. The kind of oversight provided or federal labs has resulted in what we call micro-management – many detailed procedural proscriptions and little direction on overall mission for the labs.

 

Packard says he recently participated in a task force which studied the federal labs and identified “some 2,700 Federal R&D program elements that are considered by 54 different committees and subcommittees of Congress. That means our research scientists are spending a lot of their time researching the intricacies of the Congressional maze. I’m not sure that’s a technology that we could commercialize and sell  abroad.

 

“Industrial research and development has been the one sector where spending has seen real growth over the last decade. I think that’s a trend we should encourage. The R&D tax credits of 1981 were a move in the right direction and should be renewed when they come up for revision in 1985.

 

“We should also be looking for ways to make it easier for high technology companies to share the heavy costs of research. We are seeing a number of new vehicles being developed to help pool industry resources. The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, the Semiconductor Research cooperative, and the Center for Integrated Circuits at Stanford University are examples.

 

“As our high technology companies look for ways to collaborate on research – something done widely by our foreign competitors – we must assure them that they can cooperate without fear of being charged with anti-trust violations.

 

“There is one last arena where we conduct research that I have waited until now to discuss because it is, perhaps the most important. I’m thinking of our universities which have outstanding research programs involving their faculty and graduate students.

 

“”These universities play a key role because they have two vital functions in our high technology competition. They conduct much of this country’s basic research, and they produce the highly trained technical people this country needs to maintain its lead in high technology.

 

“Our fine research universities need some help if they are going to continue to provide this country with new technologies and the  people to put them into practice.

“Our universities need better equipment to conduct basic scientific research. It is difficult to create state-of-the art technologies on outdated equipment, and that’s all too many of our universities have.

 

“Federal support of university research has been declining. The task force I participated in identified several billion dollars of savings in our federal research budget that could be achieved through better management. Those savings should be realized, and a large part of the resulting funds should be channeled to our research universities.

 

“We also need to look at ways to ease the strain between our universities and the federal government. One way to improve the relationship would be to adopt the National Science Foundation policy on indirect cost reimbursement. We should not be wasting our time and energy on debates over funding formulas.

 

“There is another reason to be worried about our universities that goes beyond outdated facilities and equipment. Our higher educational system simply does not have the capacity to produce the number of scientists and engineers our country needs to stay ahead of the rest of the world.

 

“More students now want to pursue technical courses, but must be turned away. There aren’t enough teachers to handle the demand. Right now, more than 1,000 faculty positions in engineering are vacant. Higher wages paid by industry, coupled with the  obsolete equipment I mentioned, are causing some of our most talented technical people to leave careers in teaching and university research. Fewer PhD.s are being granted to American students, and fewer of them are electing to teach.”

 

“And Packard asks. “Where shall we go if there is no one to teach our future scientists?”

 

“When I started these remarks I mentioned some trends that I find worrisome. One was Japanese incursions into the high technology market, and another was a shortage of technically trained people. Japan produces two-and-a-half times as many engineering graduates per  capita as we do here. They have recognized that highly skilled people are a prime national resource in the competition for high technology trade. So should we.

 

“We should be giving our people a better technical grounding for reasons that go beyond the well-being of our high technology industries. The jobs of the future will require technical literacy. We owe it to all our people to ensure that they can enter these new, growing job areas. And there is one last reason we should be making sure our human resources have technical skills: Working in high technology is just plain fun. I can testify to that from experience.”

 

Packard says he should end his remarks with “some kind of assurance that I know we as a nation are up to the challenges we face from abroad. I believe that America will continue to prevail in the area of high technology.

 

“I have given you an assurance, but it is a conditional one. The condition is this: That we, as a country, begin to take action now. Let’s not wait around until things are finally bad enough to be almost beyond repair.

 

“High technology is part of the greatness of America. Let’s keep a picture of that greatness in our mind and dedicate ourselves to maintain it. The ones who benefit most from that vision will be those who will follow in our footsteps.

 

“Thank you”.

 

2/1-1/83, Printed copy of the conference program

2/1/83, Typewritten list of biographies of the conference speakers

2/1/83, Draft of a speech to be given at the conference by William C. Norris, Chairman, Control Data Corp., titled Technological Cooperation: a National Priority

2/1/83, Draft of a speech to be given by Senator William V. Roth, Jr., no title

2/1/83, Draft of a speech to be given by Lionel H. Olmer, Under Secretary, International Trade Administration, titled Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness In High Technology

1/15/83, Article reprinted from the National Journal, written by F. Karl Willenbrock, titled Human Resource Needs for High Technology Industry

1/22/83, Reprint of an article in the National Journal written by William K. Krist, Ass’t. U.S. Trade Representative, titled The U.S. Response to Foreign Industrial Policies

1/22/83, Reprint of an article in the National Journal written by Harold E. Fitzgibbons, Director Hambros Bank Ltd., titled A European Perspective on U.S. High Technology Competition

12/18/82, Reprint of an article in the National Journal written by Paul Freedenberg titled U.S. Export Controls: Issues for High Technology Industries

1/1/83, Reprint of an article in the National Journal written by Paul Oosterhuis, Partner, Hogan and Hartson, titled High Technology Industries and Tax Policy in the 1980s

1/8/83, Reprint of an article in the National Journal, written by Robert D. Hormats, Vice President for International Corporate Finance, Goldman, Sachs & Co., titled High Technology Industries and the Challenges of International Competition

10/28/82, Letter to Packard from Anthony C. Stout, Chairman, The Government Research Corporation, inviting Packard to address the conference

 

1/3/83, Letter to Robert Kirkwood, HP Director of Government Affairs, from Charles P. Heeter Jr. Director Trade and International Affairs, enclosing information pertinent to the conference

1/6/83, Letter to Margaret Paull [Packard’s Secretary],from Barbara Norris Conference Director, discussing hotel arrangements

1/17/83, Letter to Packard from Robert Kirkwood discussing a breakfast meeting of Congressmen to which John Young was invited. Kirkwood asks if Packard could make it.

1/26/83, Letter to Packard from Alan Smith asking for a copy of his speech

1/26/83, Letter to Packard from Anthony C, Stout saying he is delighted Packard has agreed to participate in the conference and discussing arrangements. He encloses a preliminary program

2/11/83, Letter to Packard from Rep. Norman Mineta thanking him for attending the breakfast meeting

2/17/83, Letter to Packard from Anthony C. Stout, Conference chairman, thanking him for participating in the conference

 

 

Box 5, Folder 2 – General Speeches

 

October 25, 1983, Why Not Protectionism,  competing with Japan in the eighties, Cleveland, OH

 

1/25/83, Text of Packard’s speech. It is handwritten by Packard with the exception of a few pages which appear to be inserted from a typewritten copy of a previous speech.

 

In discussing competition with Japan, Packard says the issue is “Can we maintain and nurture free trade in this decade or are we going to face an increase in protectionism?”

 

He says this is an issue that involves “not only bilateral trade with Japan, but multilateral trade of both countries with all the other countries of the world.

 

“There is very little free trade in the world today and virtually every country has protectionism of one kind or another.

 

“I want to talk about some of the current trade issues involving the U.S. and Japan, but I thought it might be interesting to remind you of some of the things Adam Smith wrote on the subject. He is considered to be the father  – or at least a most effective advocate of free trade.

 

Professor E. G. West recently published a book entitled ‘Adam smith and his Words.’ And I want to quote a few excerpts [and Packard inserts about six typewritten pages mainly quoted from Professor West’s book which are digested below]:

‘Adam Smith was born in Scotland in 1723. He went to Glasgow University where he matriculated at the age of fourteen. He lectured in moral philosophy at the University from 1751 to 1763 when he went to France to tutor the Duke of Buccleugh. Returning to Scotland in 1767 he spent most of his time working on The Wealth of Nations. He died in 1790.

 

‘During Smith’s time protectionism was at its height. Excessive restrictions on trade between England and France [caused them] to divert their trade to the more distant colonies of the two countries.’

 

‘If those two countries, however, were to consider their real interest, without either mercantile jealousy or national animosity, the commerce of France might be more advantageous  to Great Britain than that of any other country, and for the same reason that of Great Britain to France.’

 

‘But being neighbors, they are necessarily enemies, and the wealth and power of each becomes, upon that account, more formidable to the  other, and what would increase the advantage of national friendship, serves only to inflame the violence of national animosity.’

 

‘A nation that would enrich itself by foreign trade, is certainly most likely to do so when its neighbors are all rich, industrious, and commercial nations. A great nation surrounded on all sides by wandering savages and poor barbarians might, no doubt, acquire riches by the cultivation of its own lands, and by its own interior commerce, but not by foreign trade.’

 

‘The simple fact is, of course, that in normal trade all parties gain, there exist mutual gains from trade.’

 

Returning to his own text, Packard says that Adam Smith seems to have been fully aware of the difficulties of devising a suitable political framework wherein the beneficial operations of the free market could best operate….the play of individual self-interest can take place not only in the market place but also at the ballot ox and in the political process. These two separate stages of activity give rise to conflict and inconsistency. Acting in their capacity as consumers who accept one product and reject another, individuals constitute a potent through dispersed force making for market efficiency. However, in their capacity of producers, individuals often recognize that, in majority-voting democracies, their self-interest is more effectively promoted by political lobbying to secure special protection and privileges for their particular occupation or trade. This, although as Adam Smith said, ‘The sole end of economic activity should be consumption,’ in practice, because of the particular political framework, the interests of producers often predominate. Hence the following rather pessimistic conclusion of Adam Smith:

 

‘To expect, indeed that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it.’

 

Packard continues, saying, “With sentiments like these, Smith would have been surprised at the extent of the triumph of free trade policies over the next century. He underestimated the power of his own influence and that of other economists to come. Disciples and admirers emerged everywhere. Developing the Scottish professor’s arguments and presenting them with his own particularly devastating kind of wit, the French economist Bastiat, for instance, made a telling onslaught upon entrenched monopoly positions in France. By 1850 Disraeli was confident that ‘Protection is not only dead , but damned.”

 

“Thus,” Packard continues, “this is not a new subject we are discussing today, although protectionism is not quite dead and not yet measurably damned we have made considerable progress toward Disraeli’s pronouncement in the 133 years since it was made.

 

“Now I want to remind you of some of the special characteristics of U.S.- Japan trade. The United States is the largest export market for Japanese products accounting for 26% of Japanese exports in 1982. On the other hand, Japan accounted for only 10% of U.S. exports in 1982. Canada, Western Europe, Latin America, other countries in South East Asia and some other important areas – the Middle East, are larger markets for U.S. products than Japan.

 

“If we look at the bilateral trade between U.S. and Japan there are several things which should be noted. U.S. buys mostly manufactured goods from Japan and sells a very large amount of agricultural products. It has been said that there are more acres in the U.S. producing food for Japan than there are in Japan. The bilateral deficit in trade has been growing rapidly over the last few years.

 

“In 1982 Japan had a surplus of over $17 billion. Exports from Japan to the U.S. have been growing at the rate of 16% per year while U.S. exports to Japan have been growing at about 9%. The 1983 bilateral trade imbalance is expected to be around $22-24 billion. If this trend continues the deficit will double in 5 years – could reach 50 billion by 1988 or 1989..

 

“I am fully convinced that the growth of this imbalance must be brought under better control and indeed that is one recommendation made by the U.S.- Japan Advisory Commission to President and Prime Minister and agreed to by both U.S. and Japan.

 

“I do not mean the bilateral trade should be brought into balance – [but] we will have some real problems if it is allowed to get much larger. $24 billion will provide pay for 2 million jobs at $12,000 per year, and as you all know every direct job has a multiplier of at least two. This means that the 1983 bilateral trade imbalance is costing the United States about 4 million jobs. I say there is a limit to all good things and if this problem is not solved in any other way it will most certainly result in more protectionism of one form or another against imports from Japan.

 

“I am sure most of you know there are a dozen or so bills now before the Congress, from requiring substantial domestic control in products imported from Japan, to quotas and other protectionist measures. I don’t see how Congressional action could possibly be held off at the 50 billion [level].

 

“The yen to dollar ratio has been a subject of much discussion recently and is certainly one important factor in U.S. Japan trade competition, not only bilateral but world wide.

 

“Japan could probably get along in their economy with a yen at 200/$ as well as one at 240/$, which has been the level during most of the year.

 

“Over 50% of  Japanese imports are from South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. These are largely for energy and raw materials, and they are paid for largely in $. Japan would be better off if they had to pay only 200 yen for those $ than 240 yen.

 

“Japan gets these $ by the export of manufactured products and they would end up with fewer yen for each $ they receive but their economy could balance just as well at a 200 yen/$ as at a 240 yen/$. Many in the Japanese business community agree to this and I do not see much concern about bringing the $ down to the 200 yen level except in those industries where industrial product trade is important.

 

“Even though there is undisputed agreement that we and Japan would be better off with the yen around 200, 180 would be even better. And even though it is quite likely that many of our other trade problems would be much more manageable with a yen at 200 or below the question is how to get there.

 

:”High U.S. interest rates and the prospect of high interest rates continuing over the next few years, because of the prospect of very large U.S. federal deficits continuing for several years, is certainly a major cause of the strength of the $ against the yen and most other currencies.

 

I believe that if the Congress and the Administration knew how many jobs the strong dollar and high interest rates are costing in the United States something might get done. If one includes our total export trade and several key areas such as housing and automobile finance – failure to reduce the Federal Deficit is costing us at least 6 million U.S. jobs.

 

“Some people have accused Japan of manipulating the yen but I see no evidence of that. There are some things Japan can do to strengthen the yen and I hope the forthcoming meeting between President Reagan and Prime Minister Nakasone will result in some helpful action.

 

“I mentioned agriculture as an area where the U.S. has substantial exports to Japan – $6-8 level. Agriculture is also one of the most highly protected areas in the Japanese economy.

 

Let me give you some figures:

 

Rice $/cwt       54.7 – 21.8

Wheat $/bu      20.2 – 5.3

Soybeans $/bu 31.4 – 7.2

Barley/Corn

$/bu     16.6 – 3.3

 

I don’t have figures for beef, citrus, and other important agriculture products but the U.S. – Japan Advisory Commission has a research project underway to help understand this problem and see what if anything can be done about it. In effect, the Japanese consumer is subsidizing Japanese Agriculture to the extent of between $3- 4 billion annually.

 

“Japan has taken several actions to encourage the increased import of U.S. industrial products. And Prime Minister Nakasone has encouraged Japanese industry to do more. I think it will probably be possible to generate some increase in the export of U.S. industrial products to Japan but I do not see any great break-through.

 

“The fact is that Japanese industry is fiercely competitive  – puts a high emphasis on quality and service, and U.S. customers are buying more products simply because they are better or cheaper or both. I do not believe this is the result of their Industrial Policy, although it probably has been of some help in certain areas.

 

“The Japanese do have some real advantage in labor costs. [Over the ]Last five years or so [they have had] less inflation and better control of wages.

[Note to himself to] Describe YHP wage situation.

 

Also, large scale use of cottage industries and sub-contractors. Japanese Farmers [receive] 25% [of their] income from farm products, and 75% from part time work.

 

We can not expect them to change these practices and it would be impossible to expect U.S. labor to accept pay reductions.

 

“American industry is recognizing some of the advantages of Japanese emphasis on quality – more quality circles in the U.S.

 

“Not very effective yet – HP DRAM purchases – quality, service, price – 80% to Japan.

 

“There are a number of industry to industry consultations going on: steel, automobiles, semiconductors. Not always successful but should be encouraged.

 

“Industrial Policy. Micro and macro.

 

“Japanese example on micro policies not adaptable to U.S.. We are not organized to operate that way. We have had some very bad examples. The Mansfield Amendment on R&D, the Brooks law on DOD computer purchases. There are some things we can and should do in many areas:

 

Education

R&D

Capital formation

Regulations

Better communications between business and government

 

“In summary, we are facing a very difficult and very complex problem in foreign trade, and U.S. Japan trade is a very important part.

 

“I hope we can work together to find solutions – it will take patience and understanding.

 

“The alternative [is] to go to more protectionist actions [which] would in the long run do economic damage to both the U.S. and Japan. And would have a dangerous impact on our long range relationships. As two of the most important nations of the world that must continue to work together as friends, not only through the decade of the 1980s, but through many decades ahead including those in the next century.”

 

 

 

10/25/83, Copy of printed program for the seminar

6/29/83, Letter to Packard from T. Dixon Long, Western Reserve College, and Emory C. Swank, President, Cleveland Council on World Affairs, asking to present the keynote speech on the topic of ‘Why Not Protectionism?’

A draft of the program is attached.

7/14/83, Letter to Packard from Messrs. Long and Swank, saying they are pleased he has agreed to speak at their seminar.

7/22/83, Copy of a letter from Packard to Emory Swank sending biographic material

8/18,83, Letter to Packard from E. M. de Windt, Chief Executive Officer, Eaton Corp. suggesting he spend the evening before the seminar at Eaton House where they have scheduled a working breakfast for the principle speakers and staff. He also invites Packard to dinner the evening before.

9/19/83, Letter to Packard from Emory Swank asking for the time of Packard’s arrival so they can meet him

9/30/83, Letter to Packard from Professor Yoshi Tsurumi who will also speak at the seminar enclosing some material relevant to his presentation.

10/24/83, Letter to Packard from E. M. de Windt, saying he will meet him at 6 P.M. and he attaches a list of the dinner guests and a copy of the program for the seminar

11/4/83, Letter to Packard from Emory Swank, thanking him for speaking at their seminar. He encloses a check of $500 honorarium.

11/7/83, Business card from Emory Swank enclosing a photograph taken of people at the seminar

11/8/83, Copy of a letter from Packard to Emory Swank returning the honorarium check suggesting they use the money for future programs on Japan

 

 

Box 5, Folder 3 – General Speeches

 

November 21, 1983, AEA 40^th Anniversary Dinner, The Challenge Ahead, Santa Clara, CA November 21, 1983  In view of the founding role both Packard and Hewlett

played in the start of WCEMA – WEMA – AEA they were both asked to give their perspectives on the challenge ahead

 

11/21/83, Copy of Packard’s remarks handwritten on 3×5” cards

 

Packard says he wants to give a brief report on the U.S.-Japan Commission.

 

“U.S. – Japan relations are important – two longest economies

 

“Partnership important for security of Western Pacific

 

“They will continue to be tough competitors but must avoid protectionism

 

“Fifty years ago Bill and I, were seniors at Stanford. The outlook was not very promising. Few jobs

 

“Bill and I had no grandiose plan

 

“Job at GE paid $90 a month, janitor $.25/hour, gas 10 cents, suit $25, room and board $30, car $600-$700.

 

“Japan had invaded China.  No feeling that the U.S. was international

 

“If someone had predicted in 1933 all of the exciting things that were going to happen in the next 50 years, and I would be involved in some part of it, I would have [thought it] a fairy tale.

 

“Without any doubt [the] next 50 years will be just as exciting.

 

“One can see only a few years ahead at best – for our industry.

 

“Computers and data products [will]continue growth

 

“Software limited

“Many years of growth without new technology. It has become an all electronic world – electronics cheaper, more capable, more reliable.

 

“Robots – Japan has 8000, will have 20,000 by 1985 – U.S. not far behind

 

“Genetic engineering. The new field of opportunity.

 

“Already great growth in health care – 48 years [was the] life span in 1900, now it is 72 – for a child born today, 83. The life span will continue to increase. Already human growth hormone interferon – drugs to improve memory.

 

“It is quite likely that the rate of aging can be reduced and a life expectancy of 150 years is not out of the question.

 

“Space will be an area of opportunity – manned space station – the ultimate clean room, high vacuum, zero gravity, no contamination. Material from noon or asteroids. Planning is being done on moon station.

 

“Energy has been a subject of great interest and activity. Fossil fuels will be around but sometime in the next fifty years nuclear energy will be recognized as the only and a better source.

 

“The nuclear technology will be either fusion of some type of breeder reactor. In the short term, high temperature gas cooled reactors.

“Military weapons will continue to be increasingly electronic – U.S. superiority will prevail.

 

“I suppose most of you watched ’The Day After’ last night. Unfortunately there is no possible alternative to deterrence of nuclear war by the policy of assured mutual destruction.

 

“An extensive study has just been completed which indicates that it may be possible to build an effective defense against nuclear missiles and next year’s budget will have funding to begin work on nuclear missile defense.

 

“Industrial policy- What can be done to improve the future of our industry?

 

1. Education
2. Research and development
3. Capital formation
4. Regulatory process

 

“The next 50 years will be as full of challenge, excitement and opportunity  [as the last 50 years].”

 

11/21/83, Copy of printed program for the AEA 40^th Anniversary Dinner and 1983 Annual Meeting

11/21/83, Copy of printed invitation to the dinner

10/11/83, Letter to Packard from Ed Ferrey, President of AEA, confirming their invitation to speak at the dinner.

11/4/83, Copy of a letter to Ed. Ferrey from Lewis Howard saying he will not be able to make it to the dinner.

11/11/83, Letter to Packard from Ed. Ferrey giving information about the dinner and guests. He encloses a Pamphlet titled AEA’s Statement of Purpose and Objectives

11/18/83, Letter to Packard enclosing a list of people who have accepted an invitation to attend the dinner

11/25/83, Letter to Packard from Ed. Ferrey thanking him and Bill Hewlett for speaking at the dinner. He includes this statement: ‘Over the years I have heard you speak from a number of platforms, but in my opinion your message this leek was the most interesting and most meaningful speech you have given to an audience of electronics executives.’

9/26/30, Copy of a special report – Mission to Japan.

11/22/83, Newspaper clipping from The Peninsula Times covering the dinner.