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.