FEB 9 2014: GETTING TO KNOW AMERICANS—AND AMERICA—PART 3

It was an American company that gave me my first big break in my work life. It was the Addmaster Corporation of California—which still thrives, I’m glad to say—and I had just completed a major research assignment in preparation for the launch of their product in the UK.

At the time I was merely their UK representative, but when our distributor backed away from the deal at the last minute—to the absolute consternation of Addmaster’s president, Jack Clary, and my immediate boss, Art Damschen, I offered to start Addmaster UK and to run the company myself. It was decidedly presumptuous of me because I was only in my mid-twenties and decidedly inexperienced by the standards of the time. However, I was on the spot, my research had impressed them, time was short, and we had no immediate alternative lined up.

I was given the nod almost casually, $10,000 placed in my private account to facilitate the process, and suddenly I found myself responsible for executing the plan I had outlined in my research report. I was to receive scant specific help because neither Jack nor Art knew anything about marketing. In the U.S. Addmaster sold almost all their product to Sears Roebuck and no marketing was involved. In fact, Sears had a buyer stationed at the end of the Addmaster production line. Addmaster’s expertise lay in design and manufacturing. Where marketing was concerned, I was on my own. In addition, we were late and the competition was formidable. Olivetti alone had a UK sales force that was over 400 strong—then there was NCR, a host of other well financed corporations, and the new enemy at the time: the Japanese. It looked like mission impossible.

Within a year or so, Addmaster dominated the UK market. In fact, we had about a 60% market share. How did we do it? That’s a story I shall keep for my memoirs. But essentially, we did through maneuver warfare and creativity. We did things differently and at great speed. And we looked after our customers. 

Though he lacked marketing expertise, Art Damschen made a major contribution as mentor. He would come over once a month and question everything—and in the process I learned a great deal. Strangely enough, he rarely made a suggestion—and virtually never issued an order, but his approach worked wonders. He became a friend and I am glad to say I saw him one last time just before he died. I was extremely fond of the man—and we had more good times together than I probably deserved.

I was then asked would I move to the U.S. and do the same thing there. Though I deeply appreciated the offer, I turned it down.

I wanted to write. In fact, I really had little choice in the matter. Though it meant giving up a thriving business career, the imperative was so strong it was irresistible.

It was madness, but the best decision I have ever made.

To be continued.

FEB 8 2014: GETTING TO KNOW AMERICANS—AND AMERICA—PART 2

Falling in love spans the extremes of having your soul crucified—and ecstasy. That may or may not not include sexual ecstasy—but, most probably it does. Would that I know what the term means exactly. I’m damned if I am going to find out. Ecstasy is not some technical thing. It’s as close as one gets to absolute fulfillment.

And it feels so good.

Physical, emotional, psychological? When it comes right down to it, they are all the same. We crave emotional fulfillment—and, when IT HAPPENS –and it does —we are in awe.

I was pre-pubescent, and on vocation in Monte Carlo, when I first heard the term. I passed a group of practically naked women—sunbathing topless around the pool of Le Beach Club—and one of then said? “But he brings me ecstasy.”

I had no idea what she meant—but I knew I had heard something that was best not discussed around the dinner table. Actually, given the culture at home, it probably could have been—but I would have been teased to death by my step-father. He had a quick wit—and was ruthless with it. You gave him an opening at your peril. For all that, I loved him dearly, and if I have any verbal skills, I owe them to fencing with him.

Bunny—now dead I am saddened to say—was the first great love of my life, and the first American woman I was involved with. Did she color my feelings about this extraordinary country? I’m sure she did—and strongly at that—though I don’t recall discussing the U.S. much at all. At the time we met she had just separated from the head of an oil company and lived near my home in Ireland. I had just graduated from university—Trinity College, Dublin—and was far from sure what to do in the future. After I met her, I didn’t much think about it. I lived in the moment. We both did. It was the best of times—and it broke my heart.

FEB 7 2014: GETTING TO KNOW AMERICANS—AND AMERICA—PART 1

My first encounter with the U.S. was, I suppose, through the movies. The first two I can recall were THE THIN MAN and CAPTAIN BLOOD. Given my mother’s penchant for the opposite sex, I am surprised it wasn’t through an honorary uncle—as her lovers were normally titled—but mother mostly didn’t take to Americans.

I was to fall in love with an exception.

I think my mother’s attitude had to do with some experiences in the war. Though most realized that Hitler would be hard to defeat without American help, there was still considerable resentment felt about U.S. troops in the UK who tended to forget that the British had been at war since 1939—and didn’t much appreciate that while they were stationed in Burma (for instance) Americans were sleeping with their wives.

In fact, I had a great uncle who really was stationed in Burma in WW II and who ended up commanding the Chindits. One of may favorite authors, John Masters, served in the unit at the time. Their mission was long range penetration of Japanese lines—and they took terrible casualties in the process.

To repeat a saying that was popular at the time—and which my mother often quoted: “The trouble with Americans is that they are over-paid, over-sexed—and here.”

I confess that at the age of five, or thereabouts, I didn’t share her antipathy. Then I became positively pro-American when the U.S. Information Service lent me a requested book on the war in the Pacific. If memory serves, it featured the 2nd Marine Division—and was the most amazing non-fiction book I had ever read up to that date. It portrayed quite astonishing courage under the grimmest possible circumstances—and I was lost in admiration.

Who are those guys, I wondered—and I still do.

My first encounter with living, breathing Americans was when I was 15 and on the way to Greece with my sister Maxine. At the time were were in Brindisi—down at the bottom of Italy—killing time while waiting to board the ferry to Corfu. While wandering around the town, we ran into a bunch of off-duty servicemen who befriended us, drove us around, and finally bought us a meal. I would like to think it was my personality which occasioned the encounter, but I think it is more likely that it was my sister Maxine’s long blond hair. During that trip—even though she was only 13—she attracted men like honey attracts bees. In fact, if she went exploring by herself, it became quite routine for her to re-appear with some man in tow—normally carrying something for her, and walking half a pace behind. Maxine had quite an imperious manner in those days with command presence to match. It worked wonders. 

To be continued tomorrow. Photo is of author John Masters - a truly terrific writer.

WHY IS MOVING FROM ONE WINDOWS COMPUTER TO ANOTHER SUCH A TEDIOUS TASK? Some people have a lot to answer for…

I have recently begun to think kinder thoughts about Microsoft. Why so? But everyone hates Microsoft, you are thinking.

Well, I could merely be mellowing in my old age. Just don’t count on it! Or it could be dementia (always a possibility). But I think it has more to do with the fact that although they are scarcely a warm and cuddly corporation, they do do a number of things well.

For instance, I do all my serious writing in MS Word—and rate it highly. Then there is Windows Live Writer—which is what I’m writing in now—and which I like a great deal (though it has its quirks). And finally, let me say that I think Microsoft are doing a lot of good things on the web—their re-vamped Hotmail, for instance.

As for Windows 8.1, which I liked initially before I discovered I didn’t know where anything was any more—and I’d have to go back to school (so to speak) it works so much better than the earlier versions of Windows that I am inclined to forgive the fact that the team who worked on it were clearly nuts in usability terms.

So far so good. But then I found myself having to move from an old PC to a newer one—and I regressed into: Let’s shoot Bill Gates mode. Yes I know he is now a highly regarded philanthropist—but that is only to expiate the crimes against mankind he committed by introducing Windows to the world; and then not replacing it with a decent operating system which allowed programs to be transferred effortlessly, and didn’t hide Windows Live files in weird places.

And now I read that he is going back to advise the new CEO. Given his track record with Windows, all I can say is: We should be very afraid.

Maniacal laugh—and creepy music!

SMALL ARMS ACCURACY—AND LETHALITY—MAY BE ABOUT TO IMPROVE DRAMATICALLY

One byproduct of the last 13 years of war, has been a significant increase in the accuracy of the U.S. military’s small arms. Primarily, that has been due to improved sighting systems. Iron sights still have their uses—but optical sights dominate. Where the actual rifle is concerned, both the Army and the Marines still cling to the M16 and M4 using the 5.56 x 45mm NATO round—even though vastly superior rifles and calibers are available (but that is another story).

As to the impact of such an increase in accuracy in combat, no data has been released on that—as far as I know—but suffice to say that we seem to rarely lose firefights unless substantially outnumbered; and anecdotal evidence would seem to support the notion that such improvements in accuracy are having an impact. In fact, the growth in the popularity of IED’s by our enemies is—in its own lethal way—a comment on the fact that going head to head with U.S. forces is career shortening.

Small arms accuracy may be about to improve dramatically in the future thanks to a new fire control system developed by Tracking Point. In fact, the Army have just bought  six XactSystem precision-guided firearm kits. Each will be calibrated to the XM-2010 sniper rifle and the M248 Mod 1 rounds, which are standard-issue .300 Winchester Magnum.

Let me quote briefly from that excellent publication, the Army Times:

Don’t expect the technology to remain exclusive to snipers if all goes well. Lucas said the Army is looking at advanced fire control for machine guns, carbines and the M320 grenade launcher.

TrackingPoint’s technology is well ahead of the field, Lucas said. Company officials put first-round hit probability in excess of 80 percent at 1,200 meters and upward of 98 percent at 800 meters. They call a 500-yard shot “easy” and consider 300 yards to be point-blank.

And variants can be mounted on weapons to include the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System and the individual carbine. This gives soldiers first-shot probability at the weapon’s maximum effective range, substantially increasing lethality and standoff distances down to the squad level.

And shots are not confined to point targets. A processor inside the scope can track moving targets up to 10 mph. The computer calculates offset and lead and, like the point target, the shooter simply places the aiming dot on the targeting dot and squeezes the trigger.

The digital scope makes the difference. It has a 110mm telephoto lens and a 14-megapixel image sensor streaming at 54 frames per second. It ranges from 6x to 35x. Unlike most scopes, the capture begins at the longer length to keep the picture clear no matter the distance.

The tracking scope also offers a number of features that come in handy downrange. It can:

■ Hard-line secure communications

■ Live-stream secure video to Android and iOS smart phones and tablets.

■ Tie in to integrated dismounted soldier situational awareness systems such as Nett Warrior.

■ Designate or identify blue and red forces.

■ Conduct target handoff from a drone.

■ Provide 10-digit grid of a target.

The scope also can be used as a laser designator.

The following is how the system itself works:

The closed-loop system includes a Networked Tracking Scope and semi-electronic guided trigger. Here’s how it works:
■ The shooter lases the target with the push of a button located at his trigger finger. He doesn’t have to dial in all of the dope.
■ A computer calculates 16 variables to include spin drift of the bullet, barometric pressure, temperature and magnus effect. It immediately generates a ballistic solution and places a targeting dot on the screen.
■ The shooter does not look directly at the target. He instead looks at a small display screen in the scope, which is hard-wired into a semi-electronic trigger.
■ The shooter squeezes that trigger as he aligns the aiming dot with the targeting dot. A solenoid keeps the weapon from firing until the aiming dot hits the designated target point. But once they touch … BAM! Shot out.
This takes human-induced errors such as trigger jerk and jitters out of the equation.
■ After shooting a few rounds for familiarity, the whole cycle can be done in a matter of two seconds.
■ Windage is the one thing the scope doesn’t calculate. Predominant wind speed and direction is shown on the display and adjustments are easily made with the push of a button — one press compensates for one-half mph.

By the way, we civilians can buy a civilian version of the XactSystem for somewhere between $22,500 and $27,000—but you will be relieved to hear that includes a custom Surgeon rifle.

It really is about time that our military procured a new rifle firing a different caliber for general use. We have used the M16—and variations—for over half a century. As we all know, technology has advanced considerably over that time. Personally, I think it is about time we moved to caseless ammunition.

 

 

 

 

 

#68 / FEB 5 2014: WHY DOES A THRILLER WRITER WRITE ABOUT THE ECONOMY?

Right now, Seattle is going nuts over the Seahawks—and rightly so (and freezing to death in the process—it’s cold around here at present).

The win is giving a well deserved boost to the morale of a truly great city, so I’m delighted—though the truth is that I have almost no interest in sport at all. In a way I wish I did, because it is a great social lubricant—but we are what we are.

But I mention the Seahawks to help to explain how I feel about the economy and economics in general. I find that world fascinating intellectually—and I don’t mean in a dry, academic sense. I mean that I find it as exciting and entertaining as most of us seem to find sports—and when I gain a fresh insight, I feel as thrilled as a football fan seems to be when his or her team scores.

Overall, I write about economic matters for several reasons:

• As stated, I find them fascinating. You see my kind of economics is really a study of human behavior—an investigation or voyage of adventure  if you will—so has much more in common with thriller writing than you might think. My economic world has heroes and villains, action and suspense, considerable humor, and includes all kinds of interesting gadgetry and exotic locations. About all that is missing—compared to one of my thrillers—is sex. I’ll have to think about that.
• I guess I feel we should all know rather more about such matters than most of us do. After all, though all kinds of things are important to us, our economic wellbeing is absolutely fundamental.
• I have enough ego to think that one of these days, I shall write something which—together with the efforts of others—will make a difference. The fact that this country has 316 million people in it (give or take) does not persuade me that one person’s efforts are futile. On the contrary, it makes one’s efforts to change things for the better all the more worthwhile.
• I know I’m not a particularly good statistical economist, but I do think I have a talent when it comes to understanding the various forces at work—and we all have a tendency to want to play to our strengths when and where we can.
• And, by the way, I am an economist—though in my day, the university course was called “Economics & Sociology.” Today it would be referred to as “Behavioral  Economics.” So the real question should be: Why is an economist writing thrillers?

Funnily enough, I don’t study the economy to make money. Though it is necessary to have enough money to survive—and pleasant to have a little more so you can live comfortably—personal financial gain is not my motivation. The adventure involved in solving the mystery is—and suspense and surprises are a constant.

But surely—given the large number of economists in Washington DC alone—all the possible solutions to our various economic woes will have already been tried or explored?

So you might think—but you would be wrong. In fact, there are a host of reasons why even the most talented experts don’t come up with solutions—or don’t declare them even if they have thought of them: Ideology is one; another is that they don’t want to be accused of being socialist—or some other such label; over-specialization is a third; lack of perspective is a fourth; inadequate knowledge of other countries is a fifth; a sense of futility—because the Republican will block anything that might help this administration is a sixth; careerism is a seventh.

Bear in mind that very few economists forecast the recent Great Recession. As it happens, I did—back in 2004. I did so for a mix of reasons—some economic and some political. It added up to the conclusion that the economy was structurally unsound—and something would have to give. I underestimated the scale of the financial crisis. 

I still hold to the view that our problems—most though not all—are  structural. Since we haven’t resolved the underlying issues, that means we are heading for another recession—only this time we’ll be less resilient because most of us haven’t recovered from the last one.

Is the next recession preventable? No—it’s not; because there is a lemming-like quality to the human condition. But can it’s effects be ameliorated? Yes, of course they can be—but we are doing almost nothing to prepare.

#67 / FEB 5 2014: A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY REQUIRES VOTERS TO BE BOTH INFORMED AND INVOLVED. CURRENTLY, WE DON’T HAVE THE STRUCTURES TO ACHIEVE THAT

My brain seems to be naturally wired to question the status quo. That doesn’t make for a peaceful life, but the search for better ways of doing things is intellectually rewarding—if nothing else—and I guess some of us have to do it.

I try hard not to be destructive—there is much that is good out there, which is best left alone—but I doubt that few would deny that there is room for improvement in how we govern ourselves. In fact, I hold to the view that we don’t give it nearly enough thought. Instead, we grumble about government, but devote our talents and energy to other matters.

My sense is that we’d be better off if we really did govern ourselves. I’m not advocating rugged individualism, or less government. Instead, I’m exploring more effective government—and how the gap between between the ordinary citizen and government can be narrowed. Here, I don’t claim to have found the answers as yet, but I’m convinced this goal is worth serious further research. Just because we’ve always done things a particular way doesn’t mean mean there isn’t a better way.

Let me list some guiding principles:

• The status quo is unacceptable.
• People have to feel part of something if it is to work well—and particularly if change is involved.
• People can’t feel part of something unless there is a climate of trust.
• People can’t feel part of something unless they are kept well informed. As matters stand, that is not the situation.
• A ‘them and us’ environment tends to be destructive—and, at present, that is the situation between the average citizen and the government..
• Fast computers, the high speed internet, modern communications plus technology allow us to do things that would have been inconceivable—even in the past. Now, my sense is that we are reaching critical mass in terms of capabilities.
• The split between government and the governed is man-made—so can be changed.
• Congressional districts are so large—the current average is 710,767 per district—the relationship between citizen and member of Congress virtually has to be distant. It is made even more so by the fact that members listen mostly to those who fund them.
• Reform of the constitution is long overdue.

Initial thoughts:

• Gerrymandering has to be be done away with.
• The excessive influence of money in politics has to be curbed.
• We need a structure at local level which will tie everyone into the business of government. I don’t know exactly what form it should take as yet, but it should be interactive with a strong emphasis on information and communication.
• There is no reason why people should not work for both private businesses and government at the same time—possibly by splitting the working week. This should not be confused with privatizing (which has a murky track record).

Case history:

The Swiss can field a formidable military force in a very short period of time. It is well armed, well trained and proficient. Much of the administrative burden is handled within the context of people’s normal jobs. This cuts costs dramatically. Total expenditure is only 0.9% of GDP (perhaps a fifth of U.S. military expenditure according to how you calculate). The Swiss military system also functions as social glue and a superb networking environment—useful in a nation which splits into German, French, Italian and Romansch speaking populations.

Declaration of interest: I spent some months in Switzerland while researching my book, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN. This included research into the Swiss military. There is much we can learn from the Swiss—and, in my experience—they are certainly not dull.  

Photo is of a Swiss Air Force F-5E Tiger II crossing a road between the runway and an aircraft cavern in Mollis airfield. in 1999.